Preamble

The House met at half-past Two o'clock

PRAYERS

[Mr. SPEAKER in the Chair]

PRIVATE BUSINESS

BRITISH TRANSPORT DOCKS BILL

TORBAY CORPORATION (NO. 2) BILL

CITY OF LONDON (VARIOUS POWERS) (No. 2) BILL

LONDON TRANSPORT (NO. 2) BILL

OXFORDSHIRE COUNTY COUNCIL (NO. 2) BILL

Lords Amendments considered and agreed to.

BOURNEMOUTH CORPORATION BILL [Lords]

EXETER CORPORATION BILL [Lords]

FLINTSHIRE COUNTY COUNCIL BILL [Lords]

MANCHESTER CORPORATION (GENERAL POWERS) BILL [Lords]

SCUNTHORPE CORPORATION BILL [Lords]

Bills read the Third time and passed, with Amendments.

Oral Answers to Questions — FOREIGN AND COMMONWEALTH AFFAIRS

Pakistan (Arms Supplies)

Mrs. Renée Short: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what representations he has received about the British arms shipments to Pakistan.

The Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (Sir Alec Douglas-Home): None, Sir. I would refer the hon. Member to my answers to the hon. Member for Brentford and Chiswick (Mr. Barnes) on 26th April.—[Vol. 816, c. 29.]

Mrs. Short: I thank the right hon. Gentleman for that reply but does he not agree that there is certain action which he would take, which should have have been taken long ago; namely, to bring about a political solution to this tragic conflict? Does he not think that he should take the initiative to bring together the major parties concerned with arms shipments to Pakistan, in order to see that no more shipments take place, as a first step towards reaching such a political agreement?

Sir Alec Douglas-Home: It must be for the other countries concerned to decide their own arms policy.

Mrs. Short: Then it goes on for ever.

Mrs. Shore: Does not the right hon. Gentleman think that on a matter of this kind it might be useful to consult one of our principal allies, the United States, to see whether we cannot together agree on a policy of withholding arms from Pakistan?

Sir Alec Douglas-Home: No, Sir.

European Economic Community

Dr. Gilbert: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what negotiations will be necessary under the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade should any of the present European Free Trade Assciation members not obtain full membership of


the European Economic Community; and if he will make a statement.

The Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster (Mr. Geoffrey Rippon): Of the present members of the European Free Trade Association, the United Kingdom, Denmark and Norway have applied for full membership of the European Community.
The other members of E.F.T.A. are seeking arrangements with the Community which would vary, country by country, depending on their political, economic and social position; and they are at present engaged in discussions with the Community.
Any such arrangements, when concluded, would normally be considered by the Contracting Parties to the General Agreement on Trade and Tariffs in the light of Article XXIV.

Dr. Gilbert: Is the right hon. and learned Gentleman saying that there will have to be negotiations? If there will have to be, has he taken note of the serious increase in protectionist sentiment in the United States recently and especially the Congressional sentiment, towards trade and agriculture policy? Does he have anything to say about that?

Mrs. Rippon: The position of the United States is another matter. In the course of all these negotiations a number of things happen which are relevant to G.A.T.T. All that will happen, in the normal course of events, is that when the agreement is concluded we shall report the matter to G.A.T.T.

Mr. Marten: If we do not join the Common Market, what agreement shall we seek with Common Market countries?

Mr. Rippon: That is a hypothetical question, which is not likely to arise.

Mr. Healey: To revert to the original Question, has the Minister's attention been drawn to the speech by Senator Humphrey in London last weekend, and earlier speeches made by the American Secretary of the Treasury and the American Secretary of State? Since Her Majesty's Government—I understand—are now being consulted by the members of the Common Market on important

major issues of common concern, can the right hon. and learned Gentleman assure the House that Her Majesty's Government will press for a reduction in the present discrimination operating in the Common Market against external countries, in view of the real risk that this could lead to American retaliation and grave damage to British trade?

Mr. Rippon: We have been in close touch with the American Administration. I have seen the speech to which the right hon. Gentleman refers. He will know that successive American Administrations have wholeheartedly supported Britain's application to join the Community, and have wished to see enlargement of the Community for many reasons. There are a number of matters that concern them about which we keep in touch. It is also fair to bear in mind that the Community is less protectionist than many other countries are.

Mr. Tilney: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what restrictions there are in the countries of the European Economic Community on participation in pools operated in Great Britain; and what action is being taken by Her Majesty's Government in negotiations for entry into the Common Market to remove such restrictions.

Mr. Rippon: A number of such restrictions are applied, varying from country to country. They do not present a difficulty in so far as our accession to the Community is concerned and are not, therefore, a matter for negotiation.

Mr. Tilney: Will my right hon. and learned Friend bear in mind that over 12,000 people are employed on the Merseyside in the pools business? Will it be possible to come to some agreement with the Common Market countries, rather on the lines of a double taxation agreement, whereby a proportion of our pools excise duty goes back to the country of origin, so that our balance of payments and employment on Merseyside may both benefit?

Mr. Rippon: Our present arrangements outside the Community will not be affected by our joining. As regards the other matters which my hon. Friend raises, we shall, clearly, be in a better


position, once we are inside the Community, to raise questions of that kind, all of which, I have no doubt, will be for the benefit of his constituents.

Mr. Marten: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs when he next proposes to hold a Ministerial meeting with the European Economic Community.

Mr. Rippon: The next Ministerial meeting will be on 21st September.

Mr. Marten: When my right hon. and learned Friend started negotiations with the Six, was it on the basis that if terms were agreed and put before the House the Government should make them the question of a vote of confidence, and, following from that, was it also asked by the Six that there should be broad agreement between the two main parties, and did they ever define—if not, could he ask the Ministers to define—what they expect by the wholehearted support of the House?

Mrs. Rippon: None of those matters was raised with the Ministers; nor are they likely to be.

Mr. Molloy: Will the right hon. and learned Gentleman confirm with his right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary that, after that meeting, they should consider meeting their equivalent Ministers in the Commonwealth to discuss many of the points which must arise from the next meeting?

Mr. Rippon: There are all sorts of discussions taking place at all sorts of levels all the time. I have no doubt that these will continue.

Mr. William Hamilton: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs how many members of the Commonwealth have now made official representations to Her Majesty's Government against details of the terms agreed for United Kingdom entry to the European Economic Community; and if he will make a tour of those countries before final decisions on entry to the European Economic Community are taken.

Mr. Rippon: No Commonwealth Government have expressed formal opposition to our joining the European Economic

Community. Australia has expressed concern about the effect on its exports of some of the details of the arrangements negotiated. Some anxieties have also been expressed by India and Pakistan.

Mr. Hamilton: How many Commonwealth Governments have come out specifically and positively in favour of the terms of entry that have been negotiated? In answer to the second part of the Question, will the right hon. and learned Gentleman give an undertaking that he will consult the Commonwealth Governments more closely on the implications of the Immigration Bill as it affects the free movement of labour of Commonwealth citizens into the country?

Mr. Rippon: Various Commonwealth Governments have expressed their views at various times. I think that most of them have made it clear that they understand the reasons why we are applying, and many of them have specifically welcomed our application. There are regular meetings with the High Commissioners of the Commonwealth both in Brussels and in London. We are concerned, although we have not settled it yet, about the definition of "United Kingdom national" in the context of the movement of labour, and we are in consultation, and will remain in consultation, about that aspect.

Mr. McMaster: Is my right hon. and learned Friend aware of the very great concern felt in Northern Ireland about the recently announced agreement that the movement of labour will be renewed by the Common Market countries after three years? Is he aware that this might affect the sovereignty of the people of Northern Ireland and lead to an upsetting of the political balance? Will he try to obtain better terms with respect to safeguarding employment in Northern Ireland?

Mr. Rippon: That is taking the matter a little wider than the Question on the Order Paper. It would perhaps be more appropriate for me to deal with the point when we reach another Question later on.

Mr. Mayhew: Did I hear the right hon. and learned Gentleman say that the Australian Government had made no formal complaint at all? Is he aware


that broadcasts made by an Australian spokesman in this country on the subject created an unfavourable impression not only on British viewers but back home in Australia?

Mr. Rippon: The point I was making was that Australia, like other Commonwealth countries, has never expressed opposition to our entry but has expressed anxieties about the effects of our entry upon certain specific exports. I believe that we have got an agreement which is much more comprehensive and effective than perhaps they fully understood. This matter was raised in last week's debate and I have indicated our willingness to consider with the Australian Government commodity by commodity where they feel it appropriate and where they feel that there is any threat of severe disruption to trade in any agricultural products.

Mr. Scott-Hopkins: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he remains satisfied that the negotiations for entry into the European Economic Community will be completed in time for the announced timetable for parliamentary action; and if he will make a statement.

Mr. Rippon: The progress in our negotiations with the Community gives no grounds to anticipate any adjustment to the arrangements for parliamentary consideration outlined by my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister in his statement to the House on 17th June.—[Vol. 819, c. 643–5.]

Mr. Scott-Hopkins: Will my right hon. and learned Friend confirm that negotiations on New Zealand are virtually finished and that the New Zealanders are satisfied that their interests will be protected for at least a generation? Will he also confirm that the fishery negotiations will take place at the next meeting of Ministers?

Mr. Rippon: I am satisfied that the arrangements made for New Zealand are of unlimited duration, and I hope that they will continue for as long as necessary. The question of fisheries is difficult and complex. We may make progress on 21st September, but whatever happens we must go on until we reach a satisfactory arrangement.

Mr. Arthur Lewis: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs why the document, "Britain and Europe", contains no table showing relative social security benefit increases in Common Market countries comparable with the table showing increases in average incomes; and whether he will arrange for such a table to be included in subsequent editions.

Mr. Rippon: No, Sir. There is obviously a limit to the number of tables and diagrams which can be included in a 16-page publication.

Mrs. Lewis: Is the right hon. and learned Gentleman aware that the taxpayers are paying for all this propaganda and that if they are paying for the false propaganda which is being put out, they would also like some facts and figures? Could the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster publish a supplementary White Paper to show all the necessary Orders in Council which the House will not be able to amend in any way and which will have to be agreed in toto, so that the House and the country may know what will have to happen?

Mr. Rippon: I will certainly bear in mind the hon. Gentleman's enthusiasm for more information to be published. I wish that we could have found room for this table, because it would have shown the British people that by and large social security benefits are rather larger in the Community than they are here.

Mr. Selwyn Gummer: Is my right hon. and learned Friend aware that the hon. Member for West Ham, North (Mr. Arthur Lewis) very quickly moved from the subject of social security benefits when he found that such a table would be very much to the advantage of the argument of those who wish us to enter the European Economic Community? Has my right hon. and learned Friend considered the possibility of producing another White Paper with all these facts so that one may show how clear is the case for our entry?

Mr. Rippon: We will bear that in mind. Meanwhile, if the hon. Member for West Ham, North (Mr. Arthur Lewis) cares to look at that excellent publication by the Community, "The Community


and the Common Man", he will see a great deal of useful information supporting our entry.

Mrs. Spearing: Would the right hon. and learned Gentleman agree that a table of increases in average incomes is somewhat vague and that it would have been better to show a table of incomes for comparable occupations? Will he consider that as a supplement to the information already published?

Mr. Rippon: It is important that it should be understood that the increase in real incomes in the Community in recent years has been far higher than that in the United Kingdom.

Mr. Hayhoe: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs whether he will make a statement on the progress of the negotiations over British membership of the European Economic Community.

Mr. St. John-Stevas: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs whether he will make a statement on the present state of the European Economic Community negotiations.

Mr. Rippon: I have nothing to add to my statement of 14th July and to my answer on 26th July to my hon. Friend the Member for Belfast, North (Mr. Stratton Mills) about the Northern Ireland Safeguarding of Employment Act.—[Vol. 821, c. 491–5; Vol. 822, c. 21–2.]

Mrs. Hayhoe: Would not my right hon. and learned Friend agree that the significant progress in recent weeks, perhaps as a result of debates in the House and outside, has been the highly significant and decisive swing in public opinion in favour of our entry into the Common Market?

Mr. Rippon: I am sure that my hon. Friend is right in what he says about public opinion. It is simply that the more people that know about the Community, the more they are anxious for us to go in.

Mrs, St. John-Stevas: Has my right hon. and learned Friend observed that this massive swing in public opinion in favour of entry—[HON. MEMBERS: "No."] Yes, for the first time there are more people in favour than there are

against—has occurred since the Leader of the Opposition came out against it? Can my right hon. and learned Friend judge whether this concatenation of events is purely coincidental?

Mr. Rippon: That is not a matter for me. These are troubled waters in which I do not choose to delve at the moment.

Mr. J. T. Price: As a number of important issues have been swept under the carpet because the right hon. and learned Gentleman was anxious to bring a cocked-up agreement to the House some weeks ago, can he tell the House what diplomatic activities will take place as soon as the House goes into recess on, for instance, the liquidation of the sterling balances, the abandonment of sterling as a reserve currency and the fishing agreements, all of them awkward questions? Are we to be given a report in the autumn about what will have been going on in the chancellories in the interim before we vote on the matter?

Mr. Rippon: Some of these matters, not that concerning sterling, will come up in the negotiations again. There will be another Ministerial meeting on 21st September and I have no doubt that the subject of fisheries will be considered, although I cannot guarantee that we shall settle the matter then. Far from agreements having been cocked up, to use the hon. Gentleman's elegant expression, they have been carefully considered and always reported in full to the House.

Mrs. Healey: In view of the right hon. and learned Gentleman's enthusiasm for giving the House and the public all possible information on this subject, can he explain to the House why the Government have suppressed the figure for the foreign exchange costs arising out of tariff changes on industrial goods, considering the fact that he gave the figure of £200 million to £300 million in December?

Mr. Rippon: None of these matters arose in the negotiations, as the right hon. Gentleman will appreciate. The negotiations were concerned with the contribution to the Community budget, and that I dealt with on 16th December. There were then, derived from the White


Paper of 1967, certain figures covering a number of matters, including tariff changes and changes in food import prices. One of these elements is quantified in the White Paper. The two balancing elements of the tariff changes due to changes of Commonwealth preference and the tariff advantages which will come from joining the Community are not quantifiable, and I think that everyone has recognised that. It has been very difficult for a long time.

Mr. Healey: Is it not the case that the Minister gave the House a figure in December of £200 million to £300 million and that it was suppressed, contrary to his own advice, by the Cabinet, and that he confirmed this figure privately as recently as 24th June?

Mr. Rippon: The right hon. Gentleman has no knowledge, naturally, of what advice I gave to the Cabinet, and it certainly would not follow the lines he has suggested. I have made it perfectly clear, and what I said on 16th December is on the record. It contains two elements, one of which has been quantified in the White Paper.

Mr. Latham: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what part a proposed British commitment to the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation European Defence Improvement Programme has played in the negotiations for British entry into the European Economic Community.

Mr. Rippon: None, Sir. Defence matters have at no time been an issue in the negotiations for enlargement of the European Economic Community.

Mr. Latham: Does the right hon. and learned Gentleman assert that the fact that the billion-dollar European Defence Improvement Programme was agreed upon during the period of the Common Market negotiations is pure coincidence? Has his right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary read the speech of the Minister of State for Defence at Munich in February in which he spoke of moving towards a political and defence union in Europe? Does this not mean a common weaponry and a consequent passing of British nuclear weapons into German and French hands, among others?

Mr. Rippon: It had nothing to do with the negotiations to enter the Community.

The hon. Gentleman can say it is coincidence in the sense that the agreement would have been reached in any event.

Mr. Hastings: Is my right hon. and learned Friend aware that there are those of us who are disturbed that defence has played no part in these discussions with the Community so far and who hope that such discussions will start before long?

Mr. Rippon: They will not arise in these negotiations, although, of course, we have interests in European defence, and one hopes that there are many aspects of European defence which may be assisted as a result of the enlargement of the Community. That does not follow from the negotiations.

Mr. Shore: How can the Chancellor assert that it has nothing to do with defence policy when the White Paper asserts again and again that Britain's security as well as her prosperity would be increased if we were to join? Is this not yet another area in which the benefit of a detailed and probing Select Committee examination would be felt by the House and the country?

Mr. Rippon: Even in a Select Committee people would have to ask the right questions.

Mr. Biggs-Davison: Is my right hon. Friend aware that there is no need to pussyfoot about it? Surely the object of our European policy should be to establish a European defence in a situation where the Americans want to leave and the Russians show no signs of doing so? Will he and the Government: draw the conclusions and not be afraid to tell the British nation?

Mr. Rippon: As my hon. Friend appreciates, all that I am doing is answering a question about what part defence matters played in the negotiations. The answer is "none". That is not to say that European defence is not an important issue and that other of my right hon. Friends cannot deal with it and have not dealt with it from time to time.

Mr. John Mendelson: Would the right hon. and learned Gentleman then deny, in the light of what he has said, that the Prime Minister has been pursuing plans for some time to create a joint Anglo-French nuclear command, which would


be a third nuclear command? [Interruption.] I know that it has the support of some hon. Members opposite. Would the Minister admit that this plan is still in the mind of the Prime Minister and that the Government have failed to put any of these ideas before the House in the debate on entry to the E.E.C.? [Interruption.] I am pleased to see the Prime Minister in the Chamber. I was asking his right hon. and learned Friend whether he has now given up the idea developed in the Godkin Lectures of an Anglo-French nuclear command. If he has not, are not the Government guilty of suppressing some of the essential elements in the whole negotiations over entry to the E.E.C.? Should there not be an additional White Paper on this problem before the House takes a vote on 28th October?

Mr. Rippon: These questions have been put from time to time to the Prime Minister and he has answered them. [HON. MEMBERS: "No."] They have played no part in the negotiations.

Mr. Healey: Returning to the original Question, would the Chancellor of the Duchy add to the dismay of his hon. Friends below the Gangway by admitting that the Government made no contribution to the European Defence Improvement programme until they had an assurance from the West German Government that they would meet the cost?

Mr. Rippon: That has nothing whatever to do with this question.

Uganda (Arms Supplies)

Mr. Alexander W. Lyon: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs whether he will make a statement on the request of the President of Uganda for the supply of arms.

The Minister of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (Mr. Joseph Godber): It is not Government policy to disclose details of arms sales or prospective arms sales to individual countries.

Mr. Lyon: In view of the publicity which was given to his request by the President when he was here, would it not be wise for Her Majesty's Government to make clear that at the moment it would be wrong for this Government to be involved in a dispute between two friendly members of the Commonwealth

in a situation in which the allegations are at least debatable, if not unproven?

Mr. Godber: We have no wish to be involved in a dispute between two members of the Commonwealth in this way. Britain has been a traditional supplier of arms to many of its ex-dependent territories, including Uganda. I do not think that it would be right to comment on this particular issue.

Chinese People's Republic

Mr. Frank Allaun: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on the current state of Her Majesty's Government's relations with the Chinese People's Republic.

Mr. Lane: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs whether he now proposes to alter the level of diplomatic representation in Peking.

Sir Alec Douglas-Home: Our relations with China have shown a recent improvement which we welcome and we are anxious to make further progress. Discussions about an exchange of ambassadors, which have taken place between Her Majesty's Government and the People's Republic of China, were resumed early this year and are continuing.

Mr. Allaun: May I now repeat to the Foreign Secretary the questions which I put to him on 26th April, which he then said he would consider? First, will he arrange a Ministerial visit to China? Second, could we now reach some agreement about the appointment of an ambassador? Third, shall we take the initiative at the United Nations for the admission of China by a simple majority this autumn?

Sir Alec Douglas-Home: I should very much like to visit China at some time, if that were convenient to the Chinese and to ourselves here. As regards the resolutions at the United Nations which are likely to be moved, I very much doubt that an important Question resolution will be moved this year; I think that we shall be faced with another resolution of a different kind, as yet unframed. As the hon. Gentleman knows, we have consistently voted for the Albanian resolution to seat Communist China, and I


should add that there is only one seat for one country in the organisation.

Mr. Lane: What my right hon. Friend has said this afternoon will be widely welcomed. Can he confirm that between now and the autumn Her Majesty's Government will be ready to take any further initiatives which may open up as the situation develops outside or inside the United Nations?

Sir Alec Douglas-Home: Yes, Sir; we shall study with great care what form resolutions may take at the United Nations. I have stated the guide lines on which we shall work.

Mr. Healey: Apart from the question whether China's representation is considered an important matter—I welcome the hint given by the Foreign Secretary on that—I understand that there is one other major obstacle to the restoration to full diplomatic relations with China; namely, Her Majesty's Government's maintenance of a consulate on Taiwan. Is a change in this position contemplated?

Sir Alec Douglas-Home: As the right hon. Gentleman knows, the consulate is not accredited to the Government of Taiwan. At the moment I would rather not add to what I said just now.

India and Pakistan

Mr. Shore: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what discussions he intends to have with the Governments of India and Pakistan about the refugee situation in East Bengal.

Mr. Prentice: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a further statement on the refugee situation in East Bengal.

Mr. Woodhouse: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will now initiate a proposal at the United Nations for a United Nations presence in East Parikstan.

Sir F. Bennett: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will now initiate a proposal at the United Nations for a United Nations presence in and adjoining East Pakistan.

Mr. Wilkinson: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what discussions he has had with the Governments of India and Pakistan about the proposal to establish United Nations observers in Indian territory adjacent to East Pakistan and within East Pakistan, respectively; and if he will make a statement.

Sir Alec Douglas-Home: The situation created by the refugees from East Pakistan, who, according to Indian estimates, now number over 7 million, continues to give cause for concern, and the Government support the efforts of the Secretary-General of the United Nations through the High Commissioner for Refugees to establish conditions under which their return might be effected. The Pakistan Government have already admitted a United Nations presence to East Pakistan, which includes a representative of the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees. We have been in close touch with the Indian and Pakistan Governments about the situation, but the question of the repatriation of refugees is one which I believe is best handled through the humanitarian Agencies of the United Nations.

Mrs. Shore: Right hon. and hon. Members will be glad to hear that United Nations observers have been allowed in, but, in the light of his own analysis of the causes of the refugee problem, which, as the Foreign Secretary has told the House, is due mainly to the repression carried out by the West Pakistan Army in East Bengal, and given that this repression is continuing and the flow of refugees is increasing, does not the right hon. Gentleman think that other efforts and other representations directly to the Pakistan Government are needed if we are to see some improvement in this dangerous and tragic situation?

Sir Alec Douglas-Home: As I have said to the right hon. Gentleman before, Her Majesty's Government are in contact privately with the Pakistan Government, and I think that this is the best way to conduct our relations. As regards dealing publicly with this matter, the Pakistan Government have accepted that there should be United Nations observers on the spot and that they should help to repatriate refugees. If we can get people on the spot who will help to


repatriate the refugees and see that they are redistributed to their homes without fear, that will be a beginning, at least, of reversing the flow.

Mr. Prentice: In the course of the private contacts to which the right hon. Gentleman refers, will he make inquiries about the safety of Sheikh Mujibur Rahman and representations for his release? Will he make clear also the view which I am sure is held by right hon. and hon. Members on both sides, that the only possible peaceful solution of this terrible tragedy lies in a political settlement acceptable to the people of East Bengal, and that the only practical approach to this is by negotiations with Sheikh Mujib and the Awami League, which won such an overwhelming victory in the election?

Sir Alec Douglas-Home: As I have said again and again, the political settlement which is reached in Pakistan—we profoundly hope that it will be reached as soon as possible—must be a matter for the Pakistanis themselves. No other country outside can have any influence on this. I think it better not to discuss the results of private representations which we have made about either Sheikh Mujibur Rahman or other questions.

Mr. Woodhouse: Since it is now, and has long been, clear that the problems of both restoring stable conditions and dealing with the refugees are beyond the capacity of the present resources available to any single Power, whether Pakistan or any other, is it not time that international action was taken on a much more substantial scale than is represented merely by the presence of United Nations observers?

Sir Alec Douglas-Home: We would hope so. The proposal made by the Commissioner for Refugees is that there should be a substantial number of U.N. personnel who will be responsible for the reception of refugees on the Pakistan side. The hope was also expressed that there might be a similar number of U.N. personnel on the Indian side of the frontier. So far, although there has been no formal communication to this effect, the Indian Government are not attracted by the idea.

Sir F. Bennett: In view of my right hon. Friends last words, can he confirm

that the only hitch to the successful and effective deployment of the U.N. personnel along that dangerous border is the lack of the same sort of affirmative response from India as there has already been from Pakistan?

Sir Alec Douglas-Home: It must be for the Indian Government to make their own formal representations in the matter. Their public attitude is that they are not attracted by the proposition.

Mr. Wilkinson: Does my right hon. Friend agree that it is imperative that India should publicly accept the observers, because many disinterested and objective people around the world feel that the infiltration of unfriendly elements into East Pakistan is hindering the peaceful settlement and stability in the area which all well-intentioned people so heartily long for?

Sir Alec Douglas-Home: I have been concerned with rather a different type of U.N. personnel. Observers to watch the frontier would be another matter. The personnel of whom I am talking are to help repatriate the refugees, to receive them on the Pakistan side of the border, and to see that they are safe in their homes.

Mr. Stonehouse: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that 10,000 to 30,000 refugees are still leaving East Pakistan every day, and that it is necessary for action to be taken on the cause? The cause, as the right hon. Gentleman well knows, is the continuing repression of the population in East Bengal by the Army. Is it not necessary that urgent action should be taken in the Security Council to deal with the cause of the situation, which is the continuing genocide in East Bengal? Is that not the reason why the Security Council and the United Nations were set up? Should not the right hon. Gentleman use that vehicle to deal with the situation?

Sir Alec Douglas-Home: As I think the hon. Gentleman knows, in the case of genocide there must first be an accusation, and that must be dealt with first in the courts in the country concerned. Then it must be dealt with in a court under the auspices of the United Nations; but no such court has been set up. Therefore, any accusations of genocide fall on barren ground.

Mr. Jessel: Has there been any reduction in the rate of outflow of refugees from Pakistan into India over the past month?

Sir Alec Douglas-Home: I think that it is fair to say that there has been a reduction but that there are still considerable numbers moving across the frontier.

Mrs. Healey: Is the Foreign and Commonwealth Secretary aware that we appreciate the extremely delicate situation with which he is dealing, and recognise the constructive efforts he has made to alleviate some of the problems? But many of us on both sides of the House are deeply apprehensive that during the next month or two what has been for the United Nations primarily a humanitarian problem, the relief of an unprecedented number of refugees who have left their country to go into surrounding Indian territories, may turn into a political problem and a threat to peace. Will the right hon. Gentleman assure the House that he has not closed his mind to the possibility of raising the matter at the United Nations as a political and security problem? Does he not agree that another war on the sub-continent would be a tragedy of unimaginable proportions for all concerned?

Sir Alec Douglas-Home: The right hon. Gentleman has expressed an anxiety that we share. I do not know whether a meeting of the Security Council would assist. I think that first it must be for the Governments of India or Pakistan to decide, and neither has yet decided to make a move to go to the Security Council. It is a situation that we must watch with great care, in full knowledge of the dangers that the right hon. Gentleman has pointed out.

Mr. Healey: Might I press the right hon. Gentleman on this? Many of us on both sides feel that it is unfair and perhaps unjust to put the responsibility for raising the matter at the Security Council on the Government of either India or Pakistan, given their past relations with one another. It is of deep concern to the whole of mankind that there should not be another war on the sub-continent, and, therefore, this may be a case where a third party is better placed to take the initiative than either of the two Governments on the sub-continent.

Sir Alec Douglas-Home: I shall bear in mind what the right hon. Gentleman says, because the situation could be very grave. At present I am not sure that the cause of peace between the two countries would be served by an exercise in the Security Council.

Mr. Kilfedder: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs whether he will consider seeking to pay an official visit to Pakistan and India in the near future.

Sir Alec Douglas-Home: I have no plans at present to visit India or Pakistan.

Mr. Kilfedder: Will my right hon. Friend consider paying a visit as soon as possible to India and Pakistan in view of the danger of war breaking out on the sub-continent, a danger which was pointed out in the leading article in today's Financial Times? I am sure he recognises the need, as does the President of Pakistan, for a return to normality as soon as possible in East Pakistan so that the refugees can return there. Would he not agree that the activities of the Pakistan army and the return of the army to its cantonments depends on the cessation of Bangla Desh guerrilla forces? Will he persuade the Indian Government to stop the activity of those forces?

Sir Alec Douglas-Home: My hon. Friend refers to a visit by myself. I have often been to India and Pakistan, and I would go again if I thought that that could contribute anything to a peaceful solution. I will bear my hon. Friend's proposal in mind, but the timing would be very important.

Mr. Frank Allaun: Would the right hon. Gentleman consider expressing to Mrs. Gandhi our deep appreciation of the tremendous sacrifices made by India in helping 7 million refugees, but at the same time urging her to resist the voices clamouring for military action, as that would make the situation of the refugees even more calamitous than it is today, thanks to the activities of the West Pakistan Government?

Sir Alec Douglas-Home: The Prime Minister of India would be the first to recognise the great dangers of any military action, and I am sure that the President of Pakistan recognises them, too. The hon. Gentleman may be


assured that we shall do everything we can to try to help in what is a very difficult situation.

Mr. Braine: Would my right hon. Friend agree that one does not have to pay an official visit to India and Pakistan to be aware of the extreme gravity of the position? Does he still adhere to the view which he expressed in the House some weeks ago that, on top of the abject misery in the many refugee camps, there may well be major famine in both East and West Bengal by October? Is he satisfied with the present state of international contingency planning on that score?

Sir Alec Douglas-Home: As my hon. Friend knows, a short time ago we gave £1 million to help refugees in East Pakistan. The United Nations is now taking steps to put United Nations personnel into East Pakistan, and their recommendations will be carefully taken into account. So far as any international machine is ever ready, I think that further help could be injected at comparatively short notice if the situation should deteriorate.

Mr. Tinn: Is the Foreign Secretary aware that hon. Members talked in East Pakistan with members of the regular Indian armed forces taken prisoner inside Pakistan and saw arms of Indian manufacture? Would not the proposed visit enable my right hon. Friend to make representations to India against such interference, which must hold back the day when normality may be restored and refugees enabled to return in confidence?

Sir Alec Douglas-Home: I think that everyone will agree in urging restraint on any kind of military intervention from either side of the frontier. It could bring disastrous consequences.

Malta

Mr. Biggs-Davison: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs whether he will make a further statement about relations with Malta.

Sir Alec Douglas-Home: I have nothing to add for the present to what my noble Friend the Minister of State

for Defence told the House on 27th July in the course of the Consolidated Fund Bill Debate.—[Vol. 822, c. 267–71.]

Mr. Biggs-Davison: Is my right hon. Friend aware that the difficulties with the present Maltese Government have in no way diminished the affection and admiration of the British people for their fellow subjects in Malta? If the Maltese object to being entangled with super-Powers, might it be worth while considering whether a new defence relationship could be worked out on a European rather than an Atlantic basis?

Sir Alec Douglas-Home: That could be one possibility. There are various possibilities. The North Atlantic Council is meeting this afternoon, and we hope that something constructive may emerge from that meeting.

Mr. Russell Johnston: Will the Foreign and Commonwealth Secretary also bear in mind that it should be brought to the attention of the Prime Minister of Malta that defence arrangements for certain of our requirements under N.A.T.O. could be made in Gibraltar rather than Malta?

Sir Alec Douglas-Home: There are other places where the arrangements could be made, but I think that almost every hon. Member would wish that if a reasonable agreement could be reached we should stay in Malta.

Union of Soviet Socialist Republics (Treatment of Jews)

Mr. Greville Janner: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs whether he will now make further representations at a higher level, along the lines of those made by the Permanent Under-Secretary at the Foreign and Commonwealth Office, regarding the exclusion of foreign Press and independent observers from trials of Jews in the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics.

Mr. Gorst: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what further steps Her Majesty's Government will take to seek to alleviate the situation of Jewish and other minorities in the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics.

The Under-Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (Mr. Anthony Royle): We shall certainly certainly take such opportunities as may occur to make known to the Soviet authorities the widespread concern in this country at the way in which these matters have been handled. But I must repeat that we have no proper locus standi in matters affecting Soviet citizens in the Soviet Union or the practice of Soviet law courts in these cases.

Mrs. Janner: Whilst I thank the hon. Gentleman for his concern, is he aware that the Canadian Prime Minister has been prepared to raise the matter with the Soviet authorities? Does he not feel that the time has come for the Government to intervene with the Soviet authorities at the highest possible level and not just at Under-Secretary level? Does he not feel that this would be a particularly appropriate time, because I am happy to say that more than half the total number of hon. Members have now signed the Motion in my name drawing attention to the problem, which is a rare show of both concern and unanimity in the House?

Mr. Royle: The hon. Gentleman may not be aware that my right hon. Friends the Prime Minister, and the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs and, more recently, the Permanent Under-Secretary at the Foreign and Commonwealth Office, have all expressed Her Majesty's Government's concern directly to the Soviet authorities. I do not think that we can go higher than that.

Mrs. Gorst: Will my hon. Friend study ways to see whether it is possible for the Government to combine or co-operate with like-minded Governments, possibly through the United Nations, to achieve a result which would be satisfactory and please a large number of people in this country?

Mr. Royle: I do not know whether my hon. Friend is aware that early this year our delegate at the United Nations Human Rights Commission appealed to the Soviet Government to accord all Soviet citizens the right to leave their country.

Rhodesia

Mr. Wall: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth

Affairs if he will make a statement on the continuation of talks with the Rhodesian Government.

Mr. Strang: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a further statement on Rhodesia.

Sir Alec Douglas-Home: We are still seeking to ascertain whether an acceptable basis can be found for the negotiation of a settlement within the Five Principles. For this purpose, our exploratory exchanges with the Rhodesian régime are continuing.

Mr. Wall: Can my right hon. Friend say when Lord Goodman will be returning to Salisbury and when he expects these talks to reach Ministerial level?

Sir Alec Douglas-Home: No, Sir. I hope that Lord Goodman will be able to have another meeting which will take matters further, but, as I say, I am in discussion with the Rhodesian régime about this. I leave the matter there the time being.

Mrs. Strang: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that when Ian Smith appeared on Panorama he made it clear that he had no intention of agreeing to unimpeded progress towards majority rule? Will the right hon. Gentleman give an assurance that he will not have a direct meeting with Smith unless there is an overt and clear change in his position and that he will not go to Rhodesia just as a sop to the pro-Rhodesian band of the Conservative Party?

Sir Alec Douglas-Home: That would not be my habit. In reply to the serious part of the hon. Gentleman's question, any settlement would have to be within the principle of unimpeded progress to majority rule.

Mr. Hastings: Can my right hon. Friend assure us that the question of the Common Market decision to be taken by the House in October will make no difference at all to the timing and the manner of the negotiations he is conducting in Rhodesia?

Sir Alec Douglas-Home: That is a matter for my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House.

Mr. Faulds: Will the right hon. Gentleman tell us whether it is in connection


with these talks that the tricky little traitor Hugh Beadle, who for so long deceived the rightful Governor of Southern Rhodesia while sharing both his roof and hospitality, has recently had his British passport renewed in Pretoria?

Sir Alec Douglas-Home: The hon. Gentleman had better give me notice of the latter part of that supplementary question.

Mr. Faulds: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. Is it conceivable that the Foreign Secretary does not know this as a fact?

Mr. Speaker: That is not a point of order.

Mr. Healey: While understanding the numerous delicate points of timing attending the right hon. Gentleman's negotiations on this question, may I ask whether he has any intention of meeting representatives of the Rhodesian Government before the end of September?

Sir Alec Douglas-Home: I think that the right hon. Gentleman had better await events. What I must be certain of before I meet any official representatives from Rhodesia is, as I said earlier, that we are talking the same language. I am not quite sure yet that we are.

Namibia

Mr. Judd: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what representations he has now received from the South African Government concerning the advisory opinion of the International Court of Justice on Namibia; and what reply he has sent.

Mr. Godber: On 28th July the South African Government conveyed to Her Majesty's Government an Aide-Mémoire on the Advisory Opinion of the International Court of Justice on South-West Africa. This is now being studied.

Mr. Judd: Does the right hon. Gentleman accept that there is growing frustration at the inordinate delay on the part of the Government in making their view of the advisory opinion of the International Court known? Can he give a categorical assurance that before we go into recess we can expect a clear statement from the Government accepting the

opinion and the implications that flow from it?

Mr. Godber: That supplementary question really does not follow from the Question on the Order Paper. However, there are specific Questions on that subject, and I must reserve my reply until we reach them.

Mr. Peter Archer: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs whether he has yet completed his study of the findings of the International Court of Justice on South-West Africa; and if he will make a statement.

Mr. Alexander W. Lyon: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what action Her Majesty's Government now propose to take on the judgement of the International Court on Namibia.

Mr. Godber: I am not yet in a position to add to what my right hon. Friend told the House on 12th July. I must ask hon. Members to await completion of the Government's study of the Court's Opinion.—[Vol. 821, c. 22–3, 8.]

Mr. Archer: What, about the Opinion, is less than clear? Does the right hon. Gentleman not appreciate that prior to the Opinion the United Kingdom was diplomatically isolated over this but arguably right in law, whereas since the Opinion it is diplomatically isolated and manifestly wrong in law?

Mr. Godber: I could not accept that generalisation. This is an extremely complicated issue, and the Government wish to have the fullest possible opportunity to study all aspects of it before reaching a decision.

Mr. Lyon: Is not the situation that the result of the Advisory Opinion of the Court makes Resolution 276 of 1970 mandatory and binding on this country? As a result, ought not this country to be considering ways in which it should withdraw from economic activities in Southwest Africa? If we are not to condone violence—as the Government say they will not do—to change Southern African policy and if we are not to fulfil our obligations under international law, what are we to do to change Southern African policy?

Mr. Godber: That question illustrates the danger of jumping to conclusions. It is quite wrong to assume that this resolution is mandatory. The hon. Gentleman will recognise that the arrangement to which he refers was entered into by a Government of which he was a member.

Middle East

Mr. Mayhew: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what recent discussions have been held between the French and British Governments to restart negotiations for a general settlement of the Arab-Israeli conflict.

Mr. Godber: We are in constant touch with the French Government, as with other Governments concerned, about the developing situation in the Middle East.

Mr. Mayhew: Does not the right hon. Gentleman agree that the proposals for an interim solution seem to have failed and that in the meantime Israel's actions in Jerusalem and Gaza, which are widely deplored, are making a peaceful settlement more difficult? Will he therefore get together with the French Government in order to try to make further progress on a general settlement along the lines of the American peace proposals, which are almost universally agreed?

Mr. Godber: I share the hon. Gentleman's concern to make progress in this matter and his disappointment that we have not made it yet. But I cannot share his view that the interim proposals of the United States Government have failed. Discussions are still continuing, and we must give time to make clear whether those negotiations succeed or not.

Mr. Kaufman: Does not the right hon. Gentleman agree that it would be as well to persuade the various Arab Governments to stop fighting amongthemselves in order to put them in a posture to negotiate peace with Israel? Will he take steps to interview the various Jordanian terrorists who have crossed into the relative peace of Israel and ask them who they would like to negotiate on their behalf?

Mr. Godber: The Question on the Order Paper, as I understood it, related to specific discussions which were going on, largely between Israel and the United

Arab Republic. I would not wish to comment on the wider issues the hon. Gentleman has raised.

China (Mrs. Gladys Yang)

Mr. Gorst: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what further action he has taken to obtain information from the Chinese Government about the circumstances and whereabouts of Mrs. Gladys Yang.

Mr. Anthony Royle: Mrs. Yang's detention has been raised with the Chinese Government on many ocasions. Our chargé d'affaires in Peking was informed in April that she was in good health but that the case was still under investigation. The Chinese Government have been left in no doubt of our concern at her detention. We shall continue to do all we can to secure her release.

Mr. Gorst: I appreciate the efforts which have been made by my hon. Friend of behalf of my constituent's sister, Mrs. Yang. Is not the situation extremely unsatisfactory? My hon. Friends will be aware, I hope, that I have already addressed two Questions on this subject during the last 12 months and that I have actually visited the charge d'affaires in this country and that all we are faced with is "prolonged investigation" Does this not constitute difficulties impeding any improvement in relations between this country and the Chinese Republic?

Mr. Royle: I agree with my hon. Friend that the situation is very unsatisfactory. As I have said, I shall continue to make our deep concern clear to the Chinese Government. The matter was mentioned informally to the Chinese Mission in London on 29th July by a representative of the Foreign and Commonwealth Office.

Australia

Mr. Moyle: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs whether he will make a statement on the future of Anglo-Australian relations.

Mr. Rippon: I have every confidence that Anglo-Australian relations will continue to be as close and cordial in the future as they have been in the past.

Mr. Moyle: Could they not be more cordial? Are there not a number of Australian communities which remain totally unprotected as a result of the right hon. and learned Gentleman's mishandling of the situation in Brussels? Would he not agree that unless the Sugar Agreement producers get some protection they could wreck the International Sugar Agreement by acting unilaterally? Is that not likely to happen since the E.E.C. is not a member of the International Sugar Agreement?

Mr. Rippon: The first part of the hon. Gentleman's statement is quite untrue. There is no part of the Australian economy left totally unprotected as a result of the agreement which we have reached, and that has been explained to the House. As to the future of the International Sugar Agreement, this is a matter of considerable concern. It comes up for renewal next year, and we would hope to be closely in touch with the Community and all the other parties about the future.

UPPER CLYDE SHIPBUILDERS

3.30 p.m.

Mr. Anthony Wedgwood Benn: I beg to move, That this House do now adjourn.
I wish at the outset, on behalf of the whole House, to express my congratulations to the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry on having escaped injury in the bomb attack on his flat. I am sure that hon. Members on both sides will also wish to be associated with an expression of sympathy for the woman who was hurt in the attack, and in denouncing in strong language any attempt to solve our domestic problems by violent means.
This debate is about a major human tragedy affecting thousands of workers and their families on Clydeside who will be left without work, without the pride that goes with work and without the self-respect of earning their living in the shipbuilding industry. The decision announced on Thursday, which we are now debating, will have the effect of creating on Clydeside a disaster area worse than that to be found even in areas of highest unemployment in Northern Ireland.
The Government justified the decision made on Thursday by reference to the Report of an Advisory Group published before the House as a White Paper, though unsigned by those who were supposed to have taken part in it. I submit to the House that this is the most inadequate, inaccurate and misleading White Paper presented to Parliament for many years. Responsibility for accepting it lies firmly with the Prime Minister and his Cabinet colleagues. It is, therefore, to the Government that we must turn to justify the publication of the Report, the heart of which lies in the first conclusion and first recommendation. The first conclusion referred to:
a totally mistaken initial structure which forced together in one rigid and presitious Group five companies whose shipbuilding competitiveness was exceedingly doubtful.
That was the heart of the first conclusion. The centre of the first recommendation was that
an end be made to Upper Clyde Shipbuilders.


If what was said in the Advisory Group Report were true, and it is not, then the Government could lay all the responsibility on the Labour Government, which is what they wish to do. The wording of the Advisory Group's recommendations bear a very striking resemblance to a pamphlet published two or three weeks ago by Aims of Industry and was clearly inspired by the same thinking. [Interruption.]
I wish to make it clear at the outset that I accept full and complete personal responsibility for the policy followed by the Labour Government before, during and after the establishment of U.C.S. But it is a very curious thing that the Advisory Group—quite wrongly called the Three Wise Men—made no attempt, and I have checked this, to investigate the conditions that prevailed at the time of the formation of U.C.S.
The Advisory Group had one hour-long interview with Sir William Swallow, but he was asked no questions as to the conditions at the time when U.C.S. was formed. The Group also made no attempt to interrogate me about the part I played at that time. [Laughter.] If hon. Gentlemen opposite think that a Report presented to Parliament purporting to give a judgment, without hearing the evidence, reflects well on those who made it, then they are confirming my belief that responsibility in this matter goes beyond the Cabinet to the whole of the Conservative Party.
The plain truth is that in 1965 British shipbuilding as a whole was on the point of collapse. The Geddes Committee was set up in the spring of 1965 and, after sitting for one year, it recommended that the whole of the Government's approach to shipbuilding should be based on the idea of grouping. At that time all the yards in U.C.S. faced bankruptcy, the first to go having been Fairfields. If the Labour Government had not intervened to save Fairfields, it would not now be possible for the Government to come forward with a proposal based on Fairfields as the centre of a new shipbuilding group.
When, in 1966, the Geddes Report was published, it was accepted by management and labour. It was accepted by the Government and Opposition of the day

and the Bill which I presented to Parliament to implement it was received unopposed on Second and Third Readings and was welcomed by spokesmen of the then Opposition. It was as a result of the Shipbuilding Industry Bill, as it then was, that U.C.S. was formed.
Let it be clear—because one would never guess this from reading the Report of the Advisory Group—that the grouping of U.C.S. was on the initiative of the private yards and not on the initiative of the Government. A working party of private shipbuilders was set up and it invited Mr. Hepper, who had been appointed to the Shipbuilding Industry Board, to work with it to prepare the grouping.
When the grouping had been prepared by the private shipyards, plans were submitted to the Board. The Board recommended support and I approved that support. But the group did not come into being until the directors of the private yards had submitted the matter to their shareholders and their shareholders had approved the formation of the group. Mr. Hepper was made Chairman of U.C.S. and is on record as saying that he did not expect the group to be viable until 1973.
The first grave inaccuracy in the Report of the Advisory Group is its suggestion that this group was forced by the Government to come together. The plain fact is that the private shipyards themselves responded, on their own initiative, to the recommendations of the Geddes Report.
To describe it as a "prestigious group" is a curious choice of adjective. By world standards, U.C.S. is a tiny shipbuilding group. The hon. Member for Eastleigh (Mr. David Price), now Under-Secretary of State for Trade and Industry, said on Second Reading that there were three Japanese shipbuilding groups with a capacity greater than the British and German shipbuilding industries put together. The idea that this was a massive and unwieldy group was, by nature, totally untrue.
The Government supported U.C.S. at the time for a number of reasons, first for employment reasons. There were 13,500 men working in the Upper Clyde yards, supported by another 20,000 in


supply industries in the area. The possibility of more than 30,000 jobs disappearing in West Central Scotland and on Clydeside was quite unacceptable to us. We were not prepared to see men rotting on Clydeside if there was a possibility of building a viable group there.
Lest this might appear to be soft-heartedness compared with the hard-heartedness of hon. Gentlemen opposite, it is worth adding that on any cost-benefit study of the alternative of allowing the men to rot the building of a new shipbuilding group out of those components made a lot more sense. Forming U.C.S. made much more sense than letting a lot of men be paid by the Government for doing nothing. There were also, of course, balance of payments considerations. Part of the balance of payments surplus which the Chancellor now enjoys was earned by U.C.S. because every ship built in Britain is either an import or export substitution factor.
The record of U.C.S. is well known. About £12 million of the loss which we have been invited to believe is the reason for its collapse was inherited primarily from the old private companies that had formed part of the group. When these private companies submitted their estimates of loss they under-estimated by a factor of four; the losses were four times as great as they had estimated, and this does come out in the Report.
When the £9 million of loss on the early orders of the new group are taken into account—and it was exactly to cover them that Geddes recommended that grants be paid to cover transitional losses—one gets to the figure of £21 million arising simply from the formation of the group. The Advisory Group says there were
no improvements in facilities, no worthwhile investment".
What the Group forgot to mention was the covered berth at Yarrow's which the right hon. Gentleman opened himself. This was announced by the Shipbuilding Industry Board at the time when U.C.S. was in being. The plain truth is that Yarrow's came into the group and got a £1·25 million covered berth. I am told—the Minister will correct me if I am wrong—left the group to this year paying £1 sterling for its shares and for its pains was given a £4½ million loan

interest-free up to 1974 by the Government from the Defence Vote in order to carry its losses. No reference whatsoever is made about that in the Advisory Group's Report.
I do not have to make it clear because the record is there to be seen, what the late Government's estimate of the management record was in the group. I made it clear in June, 1969, that we were not prepared to continue financial credit unless there were substantial changes in management practice, unless working practises were altered, unless there were some slimming of the labour force amounting to some thousands of men.
The oft repeated quotation by the hon. Member for Cirencester and Tewkesbury (Mr. Ridley) in the House in the early hours of Wednesday morning implied that at that time I said there was no further money for U.C.S. That is not true. I said we were not prepared to provide more money at that time unless these changes were carried through and that the S.I.B. would be ready to look at the matter again in the early part of 1970. Then before Christmas we offered a further £7 million which was welcomed at the time by the hon. Member for Glasgow, Cathcart (Mr. Edward Taylor) in his intervention when I made my statement.

The question which the House has to decide, and which the men on Clydeside want answered, is whether the achievements in the last two years justify continued faith in the concern. Mr. Ken Douglas, who was appointed managing director in 1969, came from Austin and Pickersgill, and is one of the most successful shipbuilders in this country, a man who has been in shipbuilding for 35 years, a man who instituted the cost accounting system—picked out for praise by Geddes. In the two years he has been there, steel productivity rose from 11 tons per man per year to 23·6 tons per man per year, more than twice in two years. Mr. Douglas checked the average records of the private shipyards in the 15 years before the formation of U.C.S. and the fact is that at no time did the private shipyards reach more than 10 tons per man per year—in the 15 years before the formation of U.C.S.; and the 23·6 tons per man per year productivity now compares with the best to be found in the country.

The labour force has been reduced by 16 per cent. on an agreed basis. Wage rates, separate wage rates, inherited by U.C.S., which numbered 700, have been reduced to four.

The Clyde class standardised ships have been launched, and standardised ore-carriers started. The order book is £90 million—which the Advisory Group says is rather small. Why is it rather small? Because over the winter the Government stopped the credits and the group was unable to get fresh orders.

Looking back over the years of U.C.S., and with the benefit of hindsight, I have no doubt in my own mind that it would have been better if the previous Government had taken the whole industry into public ownership at the time we launched our programme. We should have re-equipped and rationalised and swept aside the old owners. [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."] Well, why did the Government appoint Lord Robens to the Advisory Group? It is a fact that he was the man who did exactly to the coal mines what I am saying we might well have done to the British shipbuilding industry. It is astonishing to me that Lord Robens, who has had experience with the Coal Board, should have allowed his name to go forward in signing the Advisory Group's Report.

I say this to the Government, in the light of what I have said to the House, that there is no substance in the charge which they are trying to make against the previous Government, and this is why the case for a Select Committee is absolutely unanswerable. In a Select Committee the facts could be brought to light, and my colleagues and I could be subjected to cross-examination by the Members of the House. I believe that that is the proper way to proceed.

Now I move to the record of the present Government in dealing with Upper Clyde Shipbuilders. Of course, the first item is bound to be the so-called Ridley report printed in The Guardian, which was written before the election—in December 1969.

The hon. Member for Cirencester and Tewkesbury made four recommendations:
One. Give no more money to U.C.S.
Two. Let Yarrow leave U.C.S. if they still want to.

Third. This would mean the bankruptcy of U.C.S. We could put in a Government 'butcher' to cut up U.C.S. and sell cheaply to Lower Clyde and others the assets of U.C.S., to minimise upheaval and dislocation.
Finally:
After liquidation or reconstruction we should sell the Government holdings in U.C.S., even for a pittance.

That is and has been the attitude of the Government and of the Minister now responsible. That report has been quoted time and again and it was put to the Minister in the debate last week, and has never been denied.

It has to be remembered that had payments continued in the autumn of last year, and had the Government not stopped the guarantees under the shipbuilding credit scheme, from October until February, 80 per cent. of the payments due to U.C.S., amounting to £5·3 million, would not have been withheld on orders. If we look at the steel production figures we shall find that the only reduction in the rising curve of productivity occurred during the winter, when the credits were withheld.

The day on which the Government told U.C.S. that they were going to resume these payments—they told them on 3rd February—if they had not the bankruptcy of U.C.S. would have been announced on the same day, 4th February, as the bankruptcy of Rolls-Royce, and the reason why the Government gave a little more time to U.C.S. was that even they were unable to contemplate the bankruptcy of Rolls-Royce and the bankruptcy of U.C.S. on the same day, 4th February, 1971.

It is, perhaps, a curious turn of events, that as we are debating U.C.S. today the United States Senate debates the guarantee for Lockheed, without which the disaster in Glasgow—the Hillington plant and elsewhere—would be more seriously compounded.

We come to 3rd February, and I refer again to that evil genius, the hon. Member for Cirencester and Tewkesbury, whose name recurs throughout this story. This is what he said on 27th July, when he was talking about the announcement of the credits, that they would be roughly twice what had been announced to the House on 11th February:
The company's accounts were inspected by the accountants in the Department and in the Treasury including the company's accountants,


believed that the company was perfectly viable and in a condition to continue trading."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 27th July, 1971; Vol. 822, c. 393.]

What the Minister said last week was that on 11th February the Department of Trade and Industry and the Treasury were convinced that the Company was viable.

Then we come to the position now where the right hon. Gentleman was able to tell the House that there was no prospect whatsoever that Mr. Hepper could give him any hope of viability being continued. He said he did not know what the position was.

I have in my hands a document which he probably knows very well, which was submitted to his Department by the company under a system I instituted myself. There are 17 pages of figures broken down by yards, to each ship under construction, showing wages every day, showing the latest cost and the variations between estimates and costs. The Government had their own director on the board, and there was the Shipbuilding Industry Board, which had the full resources of the Department and the Treasury, and yet the Minister says he did not know the position at U.C.S. Then, in the summer, U.C.S. asked for £5 or £6 million in further support. It was this that led the Government to set up the advisory group and to publish a report which is quite unworthy of those who contributed to it, with no evidence, no figures and no estimate of the cost to the Government of the course which it recommended to the House.

The consequences of this action are well known to hon. Members. If the figures given in the report and the statement are right, 5,000 to 6,000 men could be directly affected on Clydeside. Allowing a ratio of two to one for people in the supplying industry—because shipbuilding is an assembly industry—there could be up to 15,000 people made redundant by the Government's statement. In Clydebank itself, a community of 50,000 people, about one person in three works in U.C.S. The local authority gets £100,000 in rates from the Clydebank yard. Faced with redundancies on this scale, housing subsidies will have to be paid to the unemployed. There are three advanced factories, two building and one authorised, and no takers. The shop-

keepers among many others already have been and will be affected. The school-leavers are not just leaving school but leaving Clydebank, and the town is on its way to becoming a ghost town, a town whose local authority the advisory group recommended should be invited to contribute towards the redeployment of the men. The steel workers at Clyde Bridge who supply the steel for U.C.S. are also faced with redundancy. It is estimated that £40 million of gross trade is to be taken out of the Scottish economy, an economy now denied investment grants and faced with the ending of R.E.P.

Other shipbuilding firms throughout the country are directly endangered by the fact that this Government are the only Government in any advanced country now giving no support whatsoever to the shipbuilding industry, except—and it is surprising—that the Stormont Government, unlike the Government in Westminster, are supporting Harland and Wolff, because that Government are more sensitive to the social considerations.

What is the cost of the policy? Can it be proved that this policy is somehow cheaper than the alternative? Let me add up the cost. There is the £3½ million given to the liquidator. If unemployment is between 5,000 and 15,000 that means between £5 and £15 million in redundancy and unemployment pay for the first year alone for the men involved. New jobs at an estimated cost of £1,000 to £1,500 per job would cost another £7 to £21 million. Capital for the new company, which the Secretary of State admits could be £10 million, might involve the Government in £7 million. On the estimates I make, and I have not the figures which the Minister has, it looks to me as though the Government have embarked on a policy involving expenditure between £22 and £49 million in lieu of giving the £5 million that U.C.S. required to maintain itself in June of this year.

For these reasons we believe that the Government's policy is a massive betrayal of the men working in U.C.S. It makes no industrial sense, and it makes no economic sense. While the advisory group was recommending this contraction of British shipbuilding, during the last few weeks, the Japanese have announced an increase of shipbuilding capacity of


5 million gross registered tons a year to take place over the next eight years.

Now I come to the attitude of the men faced with this betrayal. They have decided to fight for their survival against the fate the Government have prescribed for them of being put on the scrap-heap in Clydeside. Not a single member of the Cabinet has had the guts to go to Clydeside to tell the men themselves of the decision they made. The men are not striking, they are working. I support 100 per cent. their decision to work in the yards in protest against the actions that the Government have taken. Not only do I support them, but the unions, the S.T.U.C, the local authorities and the churches in Scotland support the line the men have taken.

I say this with feeling because I am a descendant of a shipyard worker and first visited John Brown 25 years ago. Over the years I have seen the labour force on Clydebank turn from a defeated, demoralised, divided group engaged in demarcation disputes and unofficial strikes into a determined and responsible body of men welded into unity in defending the public assets which have been made available to them by this House.

There is not one word of criticism from the men of the management of the yard. The reason why Mr. Douglas undertook the job may interest the House. His father was a boilermaker who had been unemployed for six years, and Mr. Douglas went there because he believed U.C.S could be saved. Mr. Douglas has said that in terms of technical and manual skills the men in U.C.S. are as good if not better than men in any other part of the country.

The steel productivity figures have been higher since the work-in was announced in June, and the first figures which are available to me show that in the two weeks following the announcement of the work-in the steel productivity figures were the highest ever achieved in U.C.S. Absenteeism has been cut by 50 per cent., pilferage has almost gone—[Hon. Members: "Oh."]—anyone working in a cold, unheated shed on cold unheated metal in the winter might take a rather different view of absenteeism, and there are some pretty distinguished absentees sitting on the Government side of the House.

The irony of this is that on Thursday in the other place the Royal Assent will be given to the Industrial Relations Bill, under Clause 93 of which it will be an unfair industrial practice for any union in Scotland to support the men faced with redundancy in U.C.S. This is the strategy of the Government. They increase unemployment and then use the courts to stop other unions supporting the men faced with the policy of redundancy upon which the Government are set.

The Secretary of State for Scotland is quoted in the Daily Telegraph on Saturday as saying that what the men have done is of no significance. It is, for reasons which I shall give the House, an historic event. The men have rediscovered, by what they have done, the self-respect which they never had under private management in the past. They want a future in shipbuilding, and they mean to have a say in that future. They have shown the way to responsibility in industry by assuming responsibility in industry. Their strong, dignified and determined stand, expressing itself in many deputations to London and by sitting in the Chamber of the House show that they expect Parliament to respond to what they have sought.

We want responsibility in industry, but we shall not get it by legislating a code of conduct and enforcing it in the courts. We shall get it by making it possible for men to exercise responsibility for their own destiny in the firms in which they work. It is up to Parliament to meet this responsibility against the background I have given to the House.

I make a positive proposal. The people in Scotland will be looking for it when they read the accounts of the debate. I propose, first, that the Government should acquire the assets from the liquidator that are not already owned by the Government; secondly, that they should write-off the debts, as has been done in other industries, notably in large chunks in the older industries such as the coal mining industry; thirdly, that U.C.S. should be asked to prepare a development plan worked out between management and workers leading to viability on a management pattern and structure agreed by the workers as a whole; fourthly, that no more than half of the money that the Government are making available to the liquidator to be


poured out in redundancy and unemployment pay or in capital for the new private group should be made available to give U.C.S. an opportunity to complete its move to viability.

The charge I make on behalf of the Opposition in the House today is a grave one. It is that the Prime Minister and the Government were determined to destroy U.C.S. from the start. They consistently misled the House as to the facts and their intentions. Thirdly, they are wasting priceless assets, the skill of the people who work in U.C.S. and doing it at a far higher cost to public funds than would be necessary if the experiment were allowed to continue. They are leaving Britain, alone among modern industrial nations as the one country that is not supporting its shipbuilding industry. In the process they are deliberately sentencing thousands of people to a slow and living death of long-term unemployment in the wasteland of West Central Scotland which the Government have decided to create.

The Prime Minister's epitaph will be: "He is the man who forgot the people", and the people will never forgive him for it.

4.0 p.m.

The Secretary of State for Trade and Industry and President of the Board of Trade (Mr. John Davies): rose—

Mr. Andrew Faulds: Let's have Ted—let Ted get on his feet. Or is he fast asleep on his yacht?

Mrs. Davies: I am grateful to the right hon. Member for Bristol, South-East (Mr. Benn) for his courtesy in referring in the terms in which he did to the recent distressing events which took place at my home.
I should like first to refer to one matter which has distressed me greatly in the last few days. It is that in any sense I personally have lacked sympathy for the situation which has arisen. [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."] Anybody who knows me will readily recognise how unlikely that is. I have always taken the view—and I took it no less last week—that expressions of sympathy are one thing and that real steps to alleviate the situation are another.
I should like to do two things today. The first is to elucidate what practical

steps are available, to say how they were devised, why they were devised, and to give the reasons the Government decided to adopt them. Secondly, I wish to review some of the background causes of this industrial disaster so that responsibility can be fairly attributed where it correctly lies. [HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear."]

Mr. Eric S. Heffer: Private enterprise.

Mr. Davies: First, I should like to deal with the practical steps and with what has happened in recent days. With regard to the expert Group which has advised us, I was astonished to see some of the remarks which have been attributed to the right hon. Gentleman and others about the attitude and comportment of this group of people. They are from any point of view a fine lot. [Laughter.]
I should like to refer right hon. and hon. Gentlemen opposite to the remarks which were made only last week by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Kilmarnock (Mr. Ross). I hope the right hon. Gentleman will not mind my quoting him. He said:
I had the advantage of seeing Sir Alexander Glen, Lord Robens and the two McDonald's. I was impressed by the quality of the people. I was anxious to find what was their remit. If a hatchet job is to be done, it will not be done by them."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 27th July, 1971; Vol. 822, c. 381.]
I believe those remarks were correctly made by the right hon. Gentleman last week. It would seem to me irrational to imagine that this group of people, three of whom are Scotsmen with a considerable and personal interest in Scotland, should have devised what has been called a "politically motivated Report". This seemed to me to be utterly divorced from reality or probability; indeed, I am entirely satisfied in my own mind that that is the case.
I therefore found it distressing to hear the right hon. Member for Bristol, South-East seek to ally this Report with what he considers to have been a longstanding intention of the Government which they have deviously followed through a variety of different steps in order to ensure the downfall of U.C.S. Nothing could be further from the truth. The so-called Ridley report to which the right hon. Gentleman referred was, so far as I was concerned, heard of for


the very first time last month. I have never heard of it before—[Interruption.]—and then I heard of it through the pages of The Guardian. How is it possible that I, who after all was responsible for the basic arrangements of policy in this field, without the least knowledge of the existence of this paper, should have been influenced by it? That idea is entirely unjustified.
The right hon. Gentleman seems to see the pursuit of this particular policy in the depriving of credit guarantees to the concern in question last autumn. He seems to forget that a specific piece of legislation, the Shipbuilding Industry Act, clearly provided that I could not give such guarantees in the circumstances in which U.C.S. found itself last autumn. Therefore, to try to pretend that the Advisory Group's Report was politically activated and that we have been following some underground and discreditable course of action is so far from the truth as to be a mockery.
It might be as well to compare the remarks I have quoted from the right hon. Member for Kilmarnock with the kind of remark attributed to the right hon. Member for Bristol, South-East in a Press Association report last week:
Simply a hatchet job … the most disrepjutable report ever published in Parliament.

Mr. William Ross: Yes, I say it too.

Mrs. Davies: Not so. It was an objective and practical assessment of the situation.
Criticism has also been levelled at the Report by the right hon. Member for Bristol, South-East because it was brief. It was not brief because the underlying material or the underlying consultation was uncareful—far from it. It was brief because the Group considered, and I think rightly, that what needed to be before Parliament and the people was a succinct statement of what the real facts were, a clear indication of the responsibilities therefor, and the steps to be taken. The background material exists in extenso; consultation was very extensive and the extent of confidential information was great too. What has been published is the most important thing. This was aimed at pointing clearly to what were the cir-

cumtances of this disaster and what was the sole means of escaping from it.

Mr. Benn: Could the right hon. Gentleman explain one thing to the House? The only meaning of the Advisory Group's Report is to reverse totally the findings of Geddes and, secondly, to do so without making any investigation of the circumstances in which the Group was established. Would he comment on that matter?

Mr. Davies: The problem the Group had to deal with was what was to be done at this juncture with a liquidating company in what were obviously serious circumstances and to see how survival from that situation could be procured. This was the requirement of the Group, and this is what it has endeavoured to do.
Let us consider what problems it faced in so doing. In the first place, it had regard to the physical condition of the yards themselves. Already at the time of the formation of U.C.S. back in 1967 these yards were either obsolete or obsolescent in their facilities. This was well known to the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Bristol, South-East. Since then virtually nothing has been done to modernise or make them more efficient in their facilities. The second thing the Group faced was that the provisions made for anything like an effective cost control or cost estimating system were completely absent. Therefore, the whole basis of forward costing of new construction which was established was unable to sustain any real understanding of where the group was going.
The third question that the Group had to deal with was the true state of labour productivity. The truth is—I readily rccept it—that in the course of the last 18 months there has undoubtedly been an improvement in terms of steel output per man. I do not wish at all to diminish the achievement, but it is a fact that this achievement was at a certain cost. It was at the cost of keeping the cost per ton of steel handled exactly the same as it had been previously. Do not let us be overborne by the claims of improvements in terms of the international competitivity of U.C.S. The truth is that it was not the case.
The productivity potential has improved. It was also considerably improved by virtue of building ships which were on


the whole basically simpler, but it is not a factor which has enormously changed the competitive terms of this company. It would be wrong to say that it had.
By far the most important consideration the Group had to face—it is extraordinary that the right hon. Gentleman paid so very little regard to it—was the position of the order book. We had all been given to understand that U.C.S. disposed of a very extensive and considerable order book which covered it for a long while into the future. The truth is that this is not so. When the Group said in the Report that the order book was dangerously thin it meant it. The situation was that, on the basis of the order book as it stands today, there was work assured, if all three yards were kept in action, for Clydebank and Scotstoun to have about a year's work ahead—no more—and for Govan to go on for a little longer but not much. This was the state of the order book. Let us make no mistake about it. The whole of the scheduling of the production side of the business was on that basis.
What were the prospects for improved orders? They were poor, because at present the shipping industry is in considerable difficulty. Freight rates, as we all know, are low, the level of new ship orders has been poor, and the prospect of bringing in a considerable number of new orders is very remote.
So the practical effect of this was that one had to look forward to a moment of time, not so long from now, when if all three yards were maintained in action, none of them would be working for want of orders to work on. These are the facts which the right hon. Gentleman conveniently seeks to ignore. They exist.
What were the conclusions the Group drew from these facts and which were the understandable ones in the circumstances? The first was that, because of this deficit of orders and the outlook of a deficit of orders, it was necessary, if a survival of activity of shipbuilding on the Clyde were to be maintained, to concentrate the order book into the facilities most fitted to receive it. The facilities in question were those of Govan and Lint-house. They were chosen for the reason I intimated earlier—that whereas all were obsolete or obsolescent these were the least so. Govan was particularly suscep-

tible to being improved, because it had space that neither Scotstoun nor Clyde bank had.
The second conclusion was that there was a need to standardise the form of ships concerned. Whereas the whole tradition of Clyde shipbuilding has been to meet on a commercial basis whatever the world has wanted, the truth is that in the Upper Clyde this potential is no longer there. In relation to the undertaking of orders for worldwide commercial shipping the yards are restricted to a certain rather limited class of ships. Therefore, standardisation in those forms of ships became essential.
Next, it was clearly envisaged that one of the fundamental requirements was a big change in management, because management has undoubtedly failed to do in U.C.S. what perhaps the right hon. Gentleman wanted. The result has been that the management is not capable of defending this new entity, this new effective long-term nucleus of shipbuilding on the Upper Clyde, and it had to move to a very much improved labour productivity. This was evident, for the reason I stated earlier, and also because in relation to worldwide shipbuilding our productivity per man is still very low.
All this meant an access to a considerable amount of additional capital. The right hon. Gentleman mentioned the figure of £10 million. It may be as much as that. I have said, and I mean, that the Government are prepared to come in with this, but they want to see some private effort to support the operation.
The reaction of the Government to the expert Group's proposals, which I contend were absolutely reasonable and impartial in the light of the facts and not politically motivated in any sense, was to try to see whether there was any possible alternative arrangement. However, any alternative arrangement that contemplated maintaining all the yards in action would be fatal, faced with the fact of the effluxion of the order book and the certainty that within a reasonable time there would have been no shipbuilding at all on the Upper Clyde. The only basis, therefore, was to take the proposals which have been made and go to work on them.
Therefore, although I understand and sympathise with the action which the


men have taken and to which the right hon. Gentleman referred—I understand their emotions of dismay and shock which have obviously taken place—I am sure that they are making a fatal mistake. I am sure that they are doing things which unfortunately will lead in the end to their own great disadvantage.
I greatly deplore what the right hon. Gentleman has been doing in trying to foster and incite them to do so, because this is not in their interests at all. [AN HON. MEMBER: "What is the right hon. Gentleman going to do for them?"] I will certainly have a word to say on the subject of the problems we face.

Mrs. Heffer: Why does not the right hon. Gentleman go there?

Mrs. Davies: It may interest right hon. and hon. Members to know that my intention is to go there to-morrow—[HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear."]—and I look forward to going there with my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland to talk to anybody who reasonably and sensibly wishes to see the activity of shipbuilding pursued on the Clyde.
I realise—none better—that even if the project which I believe is the essential one for us to pursue materialises, the impact of the U.C.S. failure will be very grave indeed- I have no doubt about that. Even if Lower Clyde Shipbuilders is able to take on 1,000 additional men, even if the other assets of U.C.S. are acquired elsewhere and operated for shipbuilding or other purposes; even though, too, the impact of concentrating this programme in a sustainable long-term operation on the Upper Clyde will have a mitigating effect on the position of the supplying concerns, I realise that there will undoubtedly be serious redundancies on the Upper Clyde. I deplore it as much as anybody, but I sincerely believe that what has been put forward is the best proposal in all the circumstances.
I know, too, that there have been a great many questions as to why something special could not be devised all of a sudden to try to mop up what is a very serious situation. Unfortunately, the trouble is—I am sure that hon. Members on both sides of the House realise this—that what we are faced with at the moment is an inadequacy of investment. [HON. MEMBERS: "Whose fault is that?"]

I think I know very well where the fault lies, but I am not here to debate that question. I am here to debate the question of the Upper Clyde, which is my big problem at the moment.
I sincerely believe that, in view of the state of the level of investments, the use of regional differentials and the discipline of the I.D.C. policy are not wholly the right methods at the moment by which to seek intensive investment in the Upper Clyde. The real problem is to increase investment, and the measures of my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer are devised to achieve that on a national scale.
The first issue that has to be faced from now on is to get the management situation right. Until that is done, all the rest of the problems are secondary. Therefore, the first thing I shall look to the Group for—and I have confidence in the Group to help with this—is to find adequate management to replace what has been in the event inadequate management. Only then will it be possible to enter into the various other measures which are concerned with negotiating with the unions, discovering sources of capital to sustain the venture, and examine with the liquidator what can be done to make sure that we can preserve the Govan-Linthouse system on the Upper Clyde as a nucleus for the future of shipbuilding there.
The genuine sympathy and understanding which I have for the people in Clydebank at the moment are not extended to the right hon. Member for Bristol, South-East. In some sense, he has been the evil genius of shipbuilding, as he has been the evil genius of a number of the country's other industrial ventures. The extraordinarily complicated alibi, to which he treated us earlier, is entirely inaccurate and fails to recognise his own responsibility. Unquestionably, the right hon. Gentleman sponsored and encouraged the whole ill-fated venture. He was the person behind the whole operation which saw the assembly of a very ill-assorted group into the U.C.S. Company. Geddes or not, the then Minister concerned was the man behind the operation. There is no doubt about that.
Fortunately, he failed, as I believe he wished to fail, to entice the Lower Clyde


shipbuilders, Scot Lithgows, into the same consortium. If we had not extracted Yarrow's earlier this year, we should have had a much more serious catastrophe on the Upper Clyde than the one that we see today.
This embryonic concern was loaded with every form of accruing liability. The right hon. Gentleman has referred to some of them today. He failed to recognise the fact that many of these liabilities were taken on after the company was formed. New orders were taken on at prices which, even in 1968, together showed manifest losses, although they were extended greatly as the years went by.
The management, for which the right hon. Gentleman cannot escape responsibility, failed to devise adequate methods of forward costing for the purpose of pricing new construction, of actual costing to check cost overrun in time to take action, of accounting generally, so that, even today, the most recent and approved audited accounts are for August, 1968. The management failed entirely to provide for essential modernisation and rationalisation of the yards. The right hon. Gentleman himself said so today. Yet he did nothing to make sure that it did. He presided over the allocation of masses of public funds to this concern at the same time as he was asserting repeatedly that he would do so no longer.
There are countless quotations on the subject. I take only one, which is the right hon. Gentleman's evidence to the Select Committee on Scottish Affairs on 24th June, 1969. On that occasion, the right hon. Gentleman said:
… we have never taken the view—it would be quite wrong to take the view—that at whatever price U.C.S. or any other company in the shipbuilding industry would be kept alive. That would be accepting an open-ended commitment and would undermine entirely the shipbuilding policy generally.

Mrs. Benn: Perhaps the right hon. Gentleman will turn back to page 256, where I said that we
… were assured that the S.I.B. would be ready to discuss the developing financial situation of the company early next year were the reconstructed Board and management. …
If there is any truth in what the right hon. Gentleman has said about my part,

why did not the Government agree to the setting up of a Select Committee to investigate it?

Mrs. Davies: The right hon. Gentleman has referred me back to what he said earlier in his evidence. I might point out in this connection that, despite what he said about the S.I.B., he put up £7 million when the S.I.B. itself would not do so, and he put it up on an entirely subordinated debt basis, virtually unsupported by his own organism. The right hon. Gentleman has no justification for saying what he has said. In my view, he cannot escape responsibility, it is there, and his present behaviour is an affront to all that has gone before.
I must apologise for that slight diversion. I felt that the record had been greatly mis-stated by the right hon. Gentleman and that it had to be put straight.
The real need now is to take urgent steps effectively to salvage what is possible from this dreadful disaster. It is to that need that we should all address ourselves. I am convinced that the Report before us is a conclusive and practical document which we should be wise to implement. I intend to devote my own efforts entirely to that, and I enjoin right hon. and hon. Gentlemen opposite and everyone who has any influence in these matters to weigh in to try to bring it about.

Hon. Members: Resign.

4.26 p.m.

Mr. Hugh McCartney: Listening to the principal spokesman for the Government on this issue, I was filled with disgust. It is apparent that the right hon. Gentleman's sole concern is to engage in an exercise of self-justification. He has no interest in the people involved in this terrible tragedy on Clydeside, for which he and his Government are principally responsible.
When the right hon. Gentleman was busy throwing brickbats at this side of the House, I was astonished that he refused the appeals to him to set up a Select Committee to inquire into the whole affair. If the right hon. Gentleman is so convinced that the origin of these troubles lies in decisions taken by the previous Government, why does not he appoint a


Select Committee which can provide the truth and get at the facts of the matter?
I do not expect the boiler makers on the benches opposite to understand the boiler makers in Clydeside. They speak a different language. They may have callouses on their backsides, but they have none on their hands.
We on this side of the House should be wearing black armbands today. Right hon. and hon. Gentlemen opposite should be draped in sackcloth and ashes. We are mourning the death of the shipbuilding industry in Upper Clydeside, and the decimation and desolation of the town of Clydebank. It is one of the large burghs in Scotland. It has a tremendous history in the shipbuilding and engineering industries. Its men and women are proud of their heritage, and they wish to continue the great traditions which have been built up in their town. Apparently, they are to be refused the opportunity. For all time, perhaps, they are to be refused the opportunity to continue along the road that they have been travelling for so many years.
The Government are now backtracking and sidestepping. They never realised the reaction that their decision would produce. At long last, they talk about going to Clydebank. The right hon. Gentleman said that he proposes to go tomorrow. I advised him to take a good bodyguard with him—

Mr. Ian MacArthur: Shame.

Mr. McCartney: The shame is on that side of the House. As I have said at least three times before in this House, the social and industrial policies of this Government are taking them down the road to violence. We cannot shut our eyes to the possibility.
I turn now to the Report of the Advisory Group on Shipbuilding on the Upper Clyde. This document, for which the Government are responsible, although they are trying to hide behind the four wise men, if such they can be called, supports statements made by the Secretary of State and others. Unlike some people, I do not think that it is a stupid document. It has been very skilfully prepared to ensure that there will be no continuity of shipbuilding on the upper reaches of the Clyde.
Paragraph 3.1 states:
Our Recommendations, subject to the approval as appropriate of the Liquidator, are as follows:—


(1) that an end be made to U.C.S. whilst retaining legal and financial flexibility to help achieve other objectives".
(2) that a successor company is established at Govan/Linthouse, and that Clydebank and Scotstoun be disposed of as soon as possible by the Liquidator".

It then goes on to refer to the programme for the yards, and in paragraph 3.5 states:
We must emphasise that these recommendations in respect of the continuation of shipbuilding at Govan are conditional on:—

(1) the full co-operation of the Unions in making this venture succeed and, in particular, in the acceptance of shift working of the type suggested above, together with competitive wage rates "

What is meant by "competitive wage rates"? It means that the Upper Clyde workers who are left in the yards after the Government have finished with them will have to accept the kind of conditions which prevail on the lower reaches of the Clyde. No trade unions or members of trade unions will accept a reduction in their standards of living through a reduction in wages and working conditions. But that is what it would mean. I will not go into the other two conditions, although we talk about "satisfactory management". I heard it said the other day that if they have to go to Japan to get satisfactory management they will get the right kind of management.
If we fail to meet any of these conditions the whole of the Upper Clyde shipbuilding structure and of shipbuilding on the Upper Clyde will disappear entirely. This is what the Secretary of State has said. We believe that the Ridley report, whether or not the Secretary of State denies knowledge of it, was the blueprint for what is now happening on Clydeside. It has been followed word by word, phrase by phrase and clause by clause. It was presented to the Tory Party before the last election by then Honourable Nicholas Ridley, known on Clydeside today, although the Under-Secretary of State, as Old Nick: the man with the horns, the forked tongue, the spiked tail and the cloven hoof. That is the impression which workers on Clydeside have of the Under-Secretary and the Secretary of State as a result of their negotiations


with them since they became respectively Under-Secretary of State and Secretary of State for Trade and Industry.
The report gives little or no information, as my right hon. Friend indicated, on how they arrived at these conclusions. I ask the Secretary of State, or whoever is to reply for the Government, to tell us what will happen in the event of no private capital becoming available to finance the project in which they are ostensibly interested. Will they honour their statements at the Dispatch Box, repeated on a number of occasions, that they will maintain a shipbuilding complex on the upper reaches of the Clyde? Will they put public money into the company? Will they nationalise the industry to ensure that their promises are kept?
What about the yards on the north side of the Clyde? We have heard that people are interested in the yards and have made inquiries. If there is no other way of assisting people who are genuinely interested in maintaining a shipbuilding industry on the north side of the Clyde than Government finance, are they prepared to give those people the necessary finance to develop the yards on the north side to maintain employment there?
Lord Provost Liddell of Glasgow, has indicated that he could have had about £3 million or £4 million of private capital made available if it had not been for the fact that the Government had no intention or no hope of any future shipbuilding unit on the Upper Clyde. Lord Provost Liddell is not a Socialist. He is not an extremist in the trade union sphere either. He happens to be a well known Tory Lord Provost. If he has no faith in the Government providing the support for a shipbuilding industry on the Upper Clyde, what hope have we of any outsider doing so?
The Clydebank area faces a situation similar to that which prevailed in the 1920s and early 1930s. We are witnessing whole families being affected by this situation. For example, I visited a house last Saturday morning. In that house was a father, two sons, three uncles and two fathers-in-law, all of whom had served their time in the industry. The father had been working in the industry for 47 years. They will all lose their jobs as a result of the Secretary of State's decision. The two sons had equipped

themselves for managerial posts by undergoing courses at the local technical college. One of them has recently bought a house on mortgage. Now their whole future has gone.
The young people in the area, those just leaving school and coming from colleges, having equipped themselves specifically for work in the shipbuilding industry, have no jobs to go to in that area. They will be leaving the town or trying to get deadend jobs elsewhere.
I am astonished that in this Report there is reference to the local authorities. Paragraph 3.1(4) states:
that every assistance is given by the Government and the Local Authorities in assisting redeployment of redundant staff and workers …
I should like to know what local authorities were consulted by the four wise men about the way that they could assist in the redeployment of these redundant workers. If they were consulted, will the Secretary of State tell us where they will redeploy them in an area which will achieve an unemployment rate of about 20 per cent.? Where will they be redeployed? In the Glasgow area? Certainly not, because the unemployment situation there is the worst since 1940. Across the river in Govan and Dunbartonshire where the Plessey troubles have occurred? No. There is nowhere in that area where any local authority could be of assistance in the redeployment of these redundant workers. [AN HON. MEMBER: "Brussels."] It is a well known fact that the Germans, the Dutch, the Belgians and the Italians are already looking towards Scottish workers to take up the empty places in their countries. We want our people to be employed on Clydeside doing what they are trained to do. The Tories do not understand that. I am sure that there are many hon. Gentlemen who feel concerned about the situation, but do not understand the people. It is time that they realised what the situation was.
A great deal of criticism is now flowing from the right hon. and hon. Gentlemen opposite about the decision of the shop stewards and the trade unions in the U.C.S. yards to take over in the way that they have done. This is one of the things to which I have previously drawn attention: that, because of the Government's policy, there would be a


natural reaction on the part of the workers to preserve and protect their jobs and standrads of living. That is exactly what has happened. The only thing is that not only the manual workers are affected. At every level in the shipyard, from the managerial level right down to the workers on the shop floor, they are unanimous that until the Government change their present direction they will stay inside the yard, with the assistance of their workmates in the country outside and overseas.
There are already indications of help from all over the world—messages of sympathy and financial assistance are coming in—to ensure the success of the struggle of these workers.
Today I have sent a telegram to the Provost of Clydebank saying:
I respectfully call on you, as civic leader, to launch an international appeal for funds to support United Clydebank Ship-Workers Unlimited to finance the continuation of employment for all shipbuilding workers in their own industry on Upper Clyde.
If that call goes out a massive response will result and we shall see funds pouring in far exceeding anything that this Government are prepared to do to sustain the Upper Clyde Shipbuilders, or any section of it on the Clydeside. It is astonishing that the Government are willing to pay over £1¼ million to provide a car park at Westminster, but they cannot provide a small amount of money required to continue U.C.S.
There is no point in appealing to the Government to change their mind, because they set out on this road before they were elected last year. All that can be done is to mount the most massive campaign that we have ever seen—and we intend to do this—to bring this Government down and restore the workers' position to what it should be under a new Labour Government.

4.42 p.m.

Mr. Edward Taylor: I am sure that the House will sympathise with the hon. Member for Dunbartonshire, East (Mr. McCartney), bearing in mind that many of his constituents are faced with uncertainty about their future. I hope that the House will forgive my saying a few words, as I represent a constituency in which there are several hundred people who work in the Clyde yards. Before I came to the

House I worked in the Clyde yards as an industrial relations officer. In view of that experience I hope that what I have to say will be helpful.
We must not under-estimate the magnitude of this crisis, or as my right hon. Friend said, the disaster that is facing us in the West of Scotland, where there is the prospect of 8,000 men becoming unemployed. We also have to face unemployment in the suppliers to this assembly industry—affecting perhaps 12,000 or 15,000 men. There are also many people outside the yards, such as small shopkeepers, who depend on the yards for their livelihood. We are doing this in a situation and against a background of many Clydeside closures in recent years—Dennys, Harlands, Barclay Curie, Henderson, Inglis and Blythswood. We also have the appalling background of over 100,000 unemployed in Scotland.
I hope that the House will concentrate on the best way of getting out of the problem, and not refer to the past and allocate responsibility. Those who say that this is part of some massive Tory plot to try to undermine the Upper Clyde are not facing the facts. No Government—of whichever party—would gladly contemplate a situation in which they were creating more unemployment in the circumstances that already exist.
At the same time, I think that some of my hon. Friends are being hard on the right hon. Member for Bristol, South-East (Mr. Benn) in constantly referring to various comments of his in which he said that no more money would be forthcoming. I know that many of the things that he said could be interpreted in that way, but in this context I think of the New Testament saying about forgiving one's brother not seven times but seven times seventy. Forgiving one's brother in that way does not mean that we say to our brother, "I forgive you and if you steal my wallet another 489 times I shall adopt the same attitude". In the context of what has happened in Upper Clyde it is reasonable to say, "Let us get down to business now in order to overcome our problem".
Those who blame the situation on the workers of Upper Clyde are also being unfair to them. I have seen the men who work there, and the report that we have received proves beyond a shadow of doubt that even if every man working in


the Upper Clyde was an industrial angel—and I am sure that the men in any factory in Britain are not that—and if they had worked seven days a week without a day off and without striking the yards, in their present situation, could not have paid. It is wrong to allocate the entire responsibility to the men.
We must remember the enormous progress that has been made not only in steel production but also on the question of the integration of the trade union organisation. Some of my colleagues say, "Why not have one union instead of hundreds?" They fail to realise that in recent years most shipyards not only in the Clyde but all over Britain the platers, the caulkers, welders, drillers and the shipwrights have all come together in one union, and old demarcation problems have ceased to exist. Terrific progress has been made in this direction. In addition, the simplification of the wages structure in the Upper Clyde has been a great step forward.
The report clearly shows that we have three choices. First, we can carry on as before, with the Government providing a great deal more capital to preserve U.C.S. and avoid liquidation. It is clear from the report that U.C.S. as at present constituted—loaded with debts, uneconomic contracts and insufficient orders—could not succeed unless the Government were prepared to provide money and a number of orders.
The second possibility is to allow the Clyde to go—to say that because it cannot economically succeed we should let it go and hope that with the normal disciplines of a capitalist economy new firms will come forward which may provide profitable employment. Nobody on either side of the House will accept that possibility, given the present unemployment situation in Scotland.
The third alternative is to try to save the part of Upper Clyde that can become viable and economic. It is rather strange to see that the Geddes solution—based on the principle that size was the answer, with all the economies of large-scale production, and the rest—has not worked. Scott-Lithgow refused to come into U.C.S., while smaller fry, like Barclay Curie (Elderslie), which are repairing on in the Upper Clyde, are still doing pretty well.

Mr. John Rankin: The hon. Gentleman has referred to Scott-Lithgow. Did I understand him to say that that firm is not coming to the Upper Clyde? Why should it? It ran out three years ago.

Mr. Taylor: I simply said that the Geddes Report suggested that we should have a tie-in of the upper reaches and the lower reaches of the Clyde. That has not emerged. If the hon. Gentleman studies the Report he will find that that is the case.
I want to put a few straight questions to my right hon. Friend, and I hope that he will be able to help us in this situation. We know that the Government have committed themselves, in what they have said, to providing funds for the continuation of Fairfields' and Stephens', subject to certain conditions. That, at least, is something.
The second thing that we are concerned about is the position of Connell's and Brown's. According to the Report those yards, after working through their present orders, should cease to function. My hope is that buyers may emerge for the Connell yard, which has a fine tradition—the Connell family has played a real part in making it an efficient yard—and which, when I was working in the yards, had about the highest steel output of any of the firms on the Upper Clyde. In case a buyer should wish to clinch the deal and set up in business, perhaps building for one company, in the form of an integrated shipbuilding and shipping group, I hope that the Government will make it clear that they have not closed their minds to providing financial assistance for such an enterprise. This would certainly help a great deal, and we might consider either Connell's or Brown's doing something apart from traditional shipbuilding. Would the Government make clear that they have not closed their minds to that, if a buyer were to emerge?
What about alternative jobs? Not only do we have the prospect of redundancies on the Upper Clyde, but we have the question of the build-up of work on the lower reaches, and in Yarrow's. The position of Yarrow's is crucial, bearing in mind its situation and its relationship with Glasgow. Naval work is crucial here. Stephens', Brown's, and Fairfields' used to build frigates, and there was even the prospect of an aircraft carrier before


certain changes were made in our defence policy.
The future level of naval orders in Yarrow's is crucial to the redeployment of manpower. Will the Government make clear that there is no question of their turning away any naval orders which might be available to this country, from whichever country they might come? [Interruption.] That, I am sure, would be most helpful.

Mr. James Hamilton: Does not the hon. Gentleman agree that, if one has certain principles, one does not submerge those principles to meet a contingency? Is there not some other way, without submerging our principles?

Mrs. Taylor: I hope that we shall never submerge any principles, but in any consideration of the situation on Clydeside we must bear in mind that naval orders might become available, including orders for ships which could protect the Cape route which is crucial to the defence of Great Britain. I hope that, if such orders are offered, they will not be turned down for any political reasons.
Again, on the question of the lower reaches, if we are to build up employment there, not only do we need the present orders but Scotts' Shipbuilding Company, who have done so much in naval work, will be looking for expansion there, too. I hope that in any future allocation of naval contracts the lower reaches will be regarded as available and eligible for whatever work is going.
Next, the question of subsidies. Will my right hon. Friend give an undertaking that the Government, through the O.E.C.D. and our other friends abroad, will look at the question of subsidising shipbuilding? We know that many countries provide State subsidies for shipbuilding. We know also that our own ship owners receive valuable concessions from this Government. Some years ago, an attempt was made to find out, through the O.E.C.D., whether the levels of subsidy in some countries were higher than in others. At the time, it seemed that Italy was way ahead in the league but that Britain, when everything was taken into account, provided direct or indirect subsidies which were not altogether out of line with what was provided by our

main competitors. It seemed that the Japanese were subsidising less.
We ought to have some sort of agreement throughout the world to the effect that countries will not subsidise unfairly simply to pinch work uneconomically from their competitors.
I am delighted to hear that my right hon. Friend is to pay a visit to the Upper Clyde tomorrow. Looking to the future, may we hope for a real endeavour from the Government, after the initial shock, as it were, to try to create circumstances in which management and men can work together and make the very best out of this crisis and save every possible job that we can? Some harsh things have been said by the men's leaders, by politicians and by others, but, once the initial shock is over, if we are to save at least some jobs, if not all the jobs, there must be the maximum co-operation and good will in working towards that end.
Everyone in the House who has experience of the union movement on Clydeside knows that the confederation of unions, which covers all the unions involved in shipbuilding, is led by men who can be co-operative, who can, I believe, work with anyone, if it is in the interests of the members of their unions who work in the yards. I earnestly hope that that situation can be achieved. If it is not, there will be no question of all jobs or just some jobs; there will be no jobs. I am sure that all right hon. and hon. Members want to see a state of affairs emerge in which we save as many jobs as possible on Clydeside and have a really viable industry.

4.55 p.m.

Mr. William Small: I am glad to follow the hon. Member for Glasgow, Cathcart (Mr. Edward Taylor), who sometimes writes comments in the Evening Citizen about my style and the quality of ties I wear. Today, I am wearing the Upper Clyde Shipbuilding tie in the form of a Maltese cross—I hope not for the last time. I want no crucifixion on the Upper Clyde or any other form of cross for the workers there to have to bear.
The hon. Gentleman made Biblical allusions. I am equally able to take references from the Bible. The right hon. Gentleman the Secretary of State for


Trade and Industry can be described as the Ishmalite, the man with his hand against everyone, and—just as one can read in Ezekiel—he is leaving behind him a valley of dry bones.
I address the House today as someone who has been here before. I am probably the richest man in the House in terms of unemployment and experience of what it means. I am glad to see the right hon. Gentleman the Prime Minister present because, whatever else may be said, I recognise that he has certain skills and he can fairly be described as a good shiphandler. It is a good shiphandler that we are looking for now, and I address myself especially to the Prime Minister.
The trouble with the Department of Trade and Industry is that it has no youth department. What is the expectation of youth on the Clyde now? I opened the training establishment at Yarrow's a month after the right hon. Gentleman opened the covered berths. We both sat at the high table. The boys on the Clyde now are rather short on table manners. They do not understand parliamentary etiquette and equally Erskine May. They are worried about something infinitely more important. What is happening there now is a work-in. It may turn out to be just gesture politics, but at present it ought to be seen for what it is, a meaningful demonstration.
I do not like what I can only describe as the "opinion editing" in the White Paper. I agree with what my right hon. Friend the Member for Bristol, South-East (Mr. Benn) said in cataloguing what took place. I know these yards. I have been round them all, and I know every top personality in them. I have the greatest admiration for Mr. Douglas.
Comments are made about the level of wages. In the Government's own philosophy, what is wrong with the workers pushing their luck in terms of wage rates? What is indecent about it? There is a price to be paid for labour. One of the problems in our modern society—I speak as an ex-shop steward who has had experience on the Clyde—is that the job and responsibilities of the shop steward are the most ill defined of all. What do we believe is the rôle of the shop steward, and what degree of cooperation or militancy in winning a battle

do we expect from him? The people who ought to be respected, when the unions are united in looking for the salvation of the Upper Clyde, are the shop stewards, and the rôle which they take is of the utmost importance. They ought not to be caricatured as they are by some people.
I speak here as an ex-shop steward and one who has experienced unemployment. The "non-genuinely seeking work" clause does not matter when there is no job to be had. That is the position on the Upper Clyde today. The shop stewards are some of the most valuable men at the moment, and, whether on questions of redundancy pay, take-home pay or administration, they will be the advisers. I hope they do not have to advise overmuch in some of these things.
I know something about Yarrow's about Connell's and about them all. What I fear—I hope that it is not true—is that what is said about Yarrow's has a political background. If this was written by the four wise men, I want to know what the political tenor and nuances are with reference to possible naval work. If Yarrow's is an established British naval shipbuilding unit on the Clyde, in competition with Cammell Laird, Vickers or someone else, is the idea at the back of it that the Scottish part of the industry can be depressed so that we will welcome anything which brings us money? If that is the style of the document, it must have been written not by the four wise men, but by a political person.
The content of the Report surprises me. It lays down conditions for negotiations with established institutions. Paragraph 3.5 seems to be an incantation of what people would like to see. The conditions given there should be placed in the reverse order, so that the first would be
satisfactory management.
The second would remain
adequate capital being forthcoming.
We all agree that there has been a shortage of capital all along the line, and the argument was not always about wage rates. The general problem was the shortage of investment. Yarrow's did get a covered shipbuilding berth which is probably one of the best in the world. The other condition is
the full co-operation of the Unions …".


That co-operation will be forthcoming, but the question of
competitive wage rates
is a matter for negotiation once there is satisfactory management. If I were a shop steward, and thought that I was up against a bum crew, when it came to arguing for wages I would know what to do.
In shipyards, as anywhere else, when people are in difficulty they like to see the manager near at hand. When miners are in trouble they like to see the pit manager close to the face. I hope that Mr. Douglas is in charge or has something to do with the negotiations. When a man enjoys the confidence of the workers and the workers are prepared to work for him, things go better. Workers do have bad managers, but they like their own bad managers, because they are part of the family. They respect a manager's decisions if they are seen to be fair. That is what the argument will be about.
I am concerned about the state of play. I hope that the Secretary of State and the Prime Minister will have second thoughts. There is nothing wrong in having second thoughts and looking at a wider picture. Shipbuilders in Japan, West Germany and Sweden must be rubbing their hands over the situation in Britain. Any slice off the British shipbuilding potential is an encouragement to others elsewhere. When I read the Report, I find myself mourning a governmental disaster.
There is a saying that the sun will shine tomorrow. That is a doubtful hypothesis for the Upper Clyde. I hope that the Government will apply themselves to the third factor—the quality of life of the people there. If the Prime Minister is looking for a foreign policy, I will give him one. It is far better to support Celtic and Rangers. Real Madrid and Barcelona have more power than Franco. The same sort of thing goes for Dynamoes and Spartak. The sporting affairs of a big city can more or less be equated with its foreign policy. I have more faith in that international language than in the diplomats.

5.5 p.m.

Mr. T. G. D. Galbraith: I understand the strong feelings of Labour hon. Members, and to a large extent I share them. But emotional ecstasy does not always lead to clear think-

ing.The Labour Party seems to suffer from a psychological disease that makes hon. Members opposite see in every decision of the Government not a practical reaction to unpalatable facts but the outcome of sinister designs against ordinary people. Thus, to them the situation on the Upper Clyde is not a distressing case of business failure, which is what it unfortunately amounts to, but the implementation of the so called Ridley plan, which we hear so much about these days, to sabotage the industry—as if any Government or any person would deliberately wish to sabotage any industry that was doing well. We have only to think calmly about the matter to see how ridiculous the suggestion is.
But fact and fiction are not always clearly separated in the minds of hon. Members opposite, nor are they always accurate in what they say, certainly not in describing my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State as a butcher. They have got the vowel wrong, and they are gunning at the wrong man. It is not my right hon. Friend who is a butcher, as the right hon. Member for Kilmarnock (Mr. Ross) described him, but it is the right hon. Member for Bristol, South-East (Mr. Benn) who is a botcher. For it is his scheme that has gone down in ruins, causing great personal hardship, as I warned him years ago was likely to be the outcome of the unnatural amalgamation he insisted on foisting upon Clydeside.
The right hon. Gentleman is not only a botcher who makes a mess of things. He is also a bit of a hypocrite, for he is now giving the impression that he stands for unlimited subsidising of the Upper Clyde. That is a cruel pose for popularity's sake. We know that he does not really mean it. We do not need to bother with precisely what he said, what warnings he gave or did not give to Upper Clyde when he was a Minister. We need only to look at what he actually did to the Greenock Dry Dock, which was to allow that company to go into liquidation—the very thing, to listen to him now, we should think would happen only over his dead body.
In what respect did the Greenock Dry Dock then differ from Upper Clyde now? However much we may regret it, however severe the social damage and personal hardship—and no one could sympathise with the men more, or understand their


feelings better, than I do—there comes a time when it is no longer justifiable to keep baling out a company that cannot make both ends meet. Why should Upper Clyde alone get that special treatment? If it is right to shield Upper Clyde from economic reality, why should not every business and firm in trouble be able to go to the Government for help?
We are discussing a fundamental principle, not just a matter that is important for Glasgow or even for the whole of Scotland. It affects the very foundations upon which the whole of industry in the United Kingdom functions, because, to put it crudely, it is the desire for profit—that horrid word to Labour hon. Members—or the fear of bankruptcy which create the framework of reality within which industry can operate efficiently. Remove that framework, which is what the Opposition suggest, and there is no basis of knowing which business should expand or which contract, which should be allowed to go on or which should be got rid of.
Even in the nationalised industries it has been found necessary to impose a financial discipline, which has had the effect of reducing the size of many of them. For example, the coal industry and the railways have been reduced. So nationalising the Upper Clyde would not provide the answer.

Dr. M. S. Miller: Is the hon. Gentleman saying that the diabolical system he is describing should be allowed to continue or that there should be some method of interfering with it?

Mr. Galbraith: I suggest that the hon. Gentleman is living in cloud-cuckoo-land if he does not realise that there has got to be a profit at the end of the day in all industry, whether private or nationalised. Even in the nationalised industries, it has been found necessary to impose financial disciplines. Nationalising U.C.S. would not provide the certainty of preserving the company in its present size, which naturally is what the men want.
Where the right hon. Gentleman made his initial mistake way back in 1967 was precisely in trying to preserve too much. I wish at that time he had heeded my

fears, which I had hoped, as a former Civil Lord with responsibility for the industry and as a Clydesider naturally sympathetic to it, might have carried some weight with him. If he had listened to those fears instead of failing to prune the industry then, he might have avoided this major disaster now. If he had done that, some of the firms would probably have gone under but others would be viable units today—instead of which, because of his ambitions, the whole lot have gone down.
The only chance of saving some shipbuilding on the Clyde is to concentrate everything on the one yard that has had most spent upon it recently. There is no other proper practical course open. That is why it is so unfair of the right hon. Gentleman to raise false hopes in the workers by encouraging them to believe that there is a future for the whole company as it exists and that occupying the yards is a viable alternative to concentrating the work in one of them. If they really care about shipbuilding on the Clyde and for the welfare of the men and the families concerned, the Opposition will not encourage them in these revolutionary ideas of taking over the yards and breaking the law. That is pure fantasy. It is living in the realm of make-believe.
Sometimes it is necessary to be cruel in order to be kind. The proposal of the Government may seem cruel but it is kind. It is facing up to the facts. It is trying to save from the debris of disaster and illusion created by the last Government the core of viability which remains and which, with the co-operation of all of us, will enable some shipbuilding still to continue on the Clyde. It is in this spirit of seeing the truth at last, after years of make-believe and of trying to save what is possible to save, that I hope the House will give its blessing, though sorrowful, to the harsh choice that the Government, in the interests of Clydeside itself, have had to make. I appeal to the Opposition to listen to common sense and banish emotion. I also appeal to the Government to remember, as I am sure they do, that human lives are involved and to do all they can to provide them with the dignity of new jobs.

5.15 p.m.

Mr. Bruce Millan: I fear that the speech of the hon. Member


for Glasgow, Hillhead (Mr. Galbraith) represents the typical opinion among hon. Members opposite. I much preferred what the hon. Member for Glasgow, Cathcart (Mr. Edward Taylor) had to say. I did not agree with his conclusions and I think that he skilfully avoided some of the major issues, but nevertheless he spoke with some detailed knowledge of this industry and with a concern for it which I do not find present in other hon. Members opposite. It is a pity for Scotland at this time that so few Scottish Tory Members know anything about the shipbuilding industry or, indeed, about Scottish industry as a whole.
The hon. Member for Hillhead, like the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry, attempted to lay a great deal of the blame for the present situation on my right hon. Friend the Member for Bristol, South-East (Mr. Benn). The Secretary of State is very anxious that we should accept his good will and sensitive feelings in these matters. He is sensitive to the criticism that he approached this problem without due regard to the social and human consequences of the Government's decision. I say straightforwardly to him that I am willing to accept his protestations today but that, if he expects us to accept what he says, he must not at the same time deal in what I think is a thoroughly nauseating way with the position of my right hon. Friend and attempt to place all the blame on him. That cuts no ice in Scotland because it is well appreciated there that, if it had not been for the actions taken by the Labour Government, shipbuilding on the Upper Clyde would have disappeared completely several years ago. That is the fact of the situation. The Labour Government saved Fairfields and then shipbuilding generally on the Upper Clyde. It is rank hypocrisy by hon. Members opposite—and I am glad that the hon. Member for Cathcart recognised it—to attack my right hon. Friend in the way they have been doing.
The right hon. Gentleman did not really answer any of the specific points made by my right hon. Friend in what I thought was a brilliant speech. The real answer is simple—a Select Committee of the House. Let us by all means look into the affairs of U.C.S. from the beginning. My right hon. Friend has called for that on numerous occasions.

Why do not the Government establish a Select Committee? I should like to see the whole history of U.C.S. laid bare, and all those who have been responsible for its management and direction in any way right from the inception questioned by a Select Committee. I should like to see the right hon. Gentleman and his Government colleagues so questioned. I should like to see all the facts about this affair made public. That, of course, is precisely the attitude of my right hon. Friend. Either the Government should announce tonight that they are establishing a Select Committee to look into the history of the affair or they should desist from this flagrant, unfair and hypocritical attempt to place the blame on my right hon. Friend.
The right hon. Gentleman answered none of the specific points put by my right hon. Friend. He did not answer the point about what the position was as recently as February this year. A few days ago, the Under-Secretary of State for Trade and Industry told the House that the Government accountants had seen the books of U.C.S., had gone over its financial circumstances in February last and had been persuaded, along with the company's own accountants, that the company was then viable. It is an extraordinary situation and says a good deal for the implications of the whole relationship between Government and industry which goes well beyond U.C.S. and Rolls-Royce and many other matters if the statement is true that in February the Government's own accountants were persuaded that the company was viable and yet in June it went into liquidation with considerable deficiencies.
What happened between February and June? There was little change in the circumstances. If the company was nonviable in June, it was non-viable in February. Yet the Government believed it to be viable in February. We had the statements by the right hon. Gentleman about the capital reconstruction which the independent firm of Thomson McLintock, chartered accountants, had been working on since December. We were told that no details could be given to the House because the details had not been worked out. The Under-Secretary of State later told us that the details had been worked out but it was only the other


day that we got the information. In any case, the capital reconstruction was never completed before liquidation.
This is part of the history that we should have elucidated. We need not go back to 1968 or 1967, although I should be happy to do so. If we could get elucidation tonight of what happened after February this year, we should get a better understanding of the situation.
Nor have we yet been told everything about the Yarrow situation. My information is that the £4½ million which the Government gave to Yarrow's in February as working capital was required to meet losses already sustained by the Yarrow division of U.C.S. Yarrow's had been largely a loss maker. The Government decided to bail out Yarrow's for defence considerations, although they decided later not to give the additional financial assistance that U.C.S. asked for.
We want the position of Yarrow's to be elucidated. My right hon. Friend was accurate when he said that Sir Eric Yarrow and his colleagues had had an extremely good bargain from the Government. They have come out of this with the company intact and with large sums of Government money, and it has cost them virtually nothing. Incidentally, it has the only substantial piece of capital investment, in the form of the covered berth, completed in U.C.S. over the last two or three years. All this should be elucidated. We ought to know the position of the Government director and be told about the various meetings which he had with Ministers and with officials from October to the date of the collapse, because he was meeting them regularly.
We should know something more about the financial reports. As my right hon. Friend pointed out, these were not generalised, vague reports, but detailed reports ship by ship and contract by contract, breaking down costs into labour costs, material costs and so on. They gave forecasts of cash flow and so forth for 12 months ahead. Were those reports accurate? If they were, why were not the Government informed about the situation? If they were inaccurate, was that because of the inadequacy of the company's accountants, or some intention on the part of the management to mislead the Government?
All these are very important questions. I do not want to spend a lot of time going back into the history of this affair, but these questions must be answered and if they are not answered tonight, we must have a Select Committee to look into these and other questions about the whole history of the U.C.S. affair which hon. Members opposite or my hon. Friends want to have answered. If we are to be treated to these condemnations of my right hon. Friend and simultaneously to a complete lack of frankness with the House, such as we have had from the right hon. Gentleman and his colleagues over the last few months, we are faced with a shameful state of affairs.
I come to the report of the expert advisers. It is completely inadequate. It is an absolute insult that 15,000 jobs are affected and yet a miserable three page document of this sort is presented to the House. I am surprised that the right hon. Gentleman does not recognise this, and if he does not, as plainly he does not, that is simply another demonstration of his complete lack of sensitivity in these matters and his complete failure to understand the feeling in Clydeside and in Scotland generally on this matter.
We have a report which dismisses Clydebank in half a sentence. A town cannot be condemned to death in half a sentence in a three-page report. The right hon. Gentleman must realise that this report has evinced the maximum hostility not just among workers in the yard, but throughout Clydeside. My right hon. Friend was absolutely right to say that there is strong and angry feeling about the Government in the yards themselves and generally in the community in the Clydeside area.
Having created the maximum hostility, the right hon. Gentleman has compounded the offence by a highly misleading reference in the House last Thursday to 400 redundancies. The liquidator announced the very next day that those 400 redundancies would be in August and that in September there would be 1,000 more. These were not redundancies to occur in the months or years ahead. Scotstoun was to be closed by the end of the year and Clydebank next March. We are talking of 5,000 or 6,000 redundancies within a measurable period when we have more than 10 per cent. of the male population in Glasgow unemployed


and when the situation in some surrounding areas is even worse and when the Clydebank situation will be disastrous if this plan is carried through.
There was an alternative, and my right hon. Friend described it very briefly this afternoon. I have never taken the view, and nor has my right hon. Friend, that millions of pounds of public money should be poured into U.C.S. regardless of the viability and the prospective viability of the yard, regardless of the state of the management and regardless of the general shipbuilding position and so on.
The view we have taken is that there should be appropriate support in a situation in which, as is well known, the British shipbuilding industry as a whole requires support and in that characteristic, incidentally, is following the shipbuilding industries of the rest of the world. U.C.S. requires support and to be sustained until it can be put on a viable basis. I believe, and nothing said in the report has shaken this belief, that U.C.S. could have been made viable with something like the number of men now employed by U.C.S.
If there is a case against that view, it should have been put into the report and we should not have been put in the position of simply being asked to accept the word of four outside advisers. Who do they think they are? There is a tremendous conceit in this. The Under-Secretary told the House the other night, with absolute arrogance, that if he told us something, we had to accept it without question. We have the same kind of attitude in this report and we had it from the right hon. Gentleman last Thursday and again today.
I believe that U.C.S. could have been sustained. That might have involved redeployment; it might have involved double shift working; it might have involved new management and it obviously should have involved changes in management; and it might have involved changes in industrial relations. All these things were required and they could have been accepted by the workers if they had been put in the context of a report and of a Government decision on that report which showed that the Government were influenced by the human and social consequences on Clydeside and that they were directed to maintaining the maxi

mum employment in the Upper Clyde. The right hon. Gentleman is living in cloud-cuckoo-land, to borrow the phrase of the hon. Member for Hillhead, if he expects a chance of the kind of solution which the Government have proposed being accepted by the workers on Clyde-side and, incidentally, if he expects private capital to be interested.
The report cannot be accepted and the Government's decision cannot be accepted. It will have to be withdrawn if Upper Clyde is to be secure in any shape or form. I believe that that can still be done on the lines which my right hon. Friend and I have described. It will not be easy, particularly in the atmosphere of hostility and bitterness which the Government's decision of last week created in Clydeside. Nor will it be cheap, but it will not be more expensive than the solution now being adopted, if account is taken of redundancy payments, unemployment benefit, and the need to put money into the reconstruction of the company and the need to bring new jobs to Clydeside, and so on.
It will not be easy or cheap, but it must be done if the Government are to restore their credibility not only in Clydeside, but in Scotland. In Scotland we are facing a desperate unemployment situation. We are facing a lack of confidence among both management and men which we have never known, at least not in the 12 years that I have represented a Glasgow constituency. Only the Government can restore some of that confidence, and the first thing they must do is to withdraw this ill-conceived plan and produce another which will give hope and confidence and the prospect of success to both management and men in Upper Clyde.

5.30 p.m.

Mr. Ian MacArthur: The nature of the problems which confront U.C.S. and the sad history which produced them has been clouded over during the last few days by the concern felt by hon. and right hon. Gentleman on all sides of the House for the future of the men working at U.C.S. and the thousands more employed by firms which depend on U.C.S. for their orders. Unemployment in Scotland is already intolerably high and the prospect of more men losing their jobs could not come at an unhappier time.
I said in our debate on the Scottish economy on 13th July that the U.C.S. problem concerns everyone in Scotland, first, because the repercussions of the situation will be felt very widely indeed, and second, because every Scot has affection and pride for the great traditions of Clydeside. Employment in my constituency is not directly affected by the U.C.S. collapse but every area in Scotland, including my own, depends on confidence and growth in the whole Scottish economy, and those qualities have been put at risk.
The risk springs in my view not so much from the U.C.S. tragedy as from the impression being created, not least by some hon. Gentlemen opposite, that Scotland itself is in decline, and therefore not a place to be favoured by expanding industry. This is a totally false impression. Despite the grave problems in Clydeside, and they could hardly be graver, despite the succession of reverses suffered by some sections of Scottish industry, the basic pattern of industry in Scotland is healthy because we have moved to a new industrial structure which has a growing stake in the new sophistication of technological advance. It is from that modern and new base that our future progress will grow. Clearly, that progress will depend on the development and expansion of the total United Kingdom economy and I therefore welcome the action taken by the Government last month to spur on growth and to revive the confidence which will produce the expansion we so desperately need in Scotland.
There has been widespread and bitter recrimination about the events leading to the U.C.S. tragedy. I suggest that argument about who was or was not responsible does not help the present very much and contributes nothing to the future. But right hon. Members opposite, and particularly the right hon. Member for Bristol, South-East (Mr. Benn) have been so busy accusing the present Government and have done so much to whip up feeling on Clydeside, that it is worth while remembering his own participation in this tragedy.

Hon. Members: Disgraceful.

Mr. MacArthur: Mr. Deputy Speaker, if you wish to see a memorial to the right hon. Gentleman's Ministry, look around U.C.S.
Let hon. Gentlemen opposite compare what they say today with what the Advisory Group reported a day or two ago. It was the Labour Government which brought U.C.S. into existence. Today, the right hon. Gentleman tried to shuffle off his responsibility, but at least he will agree that' he certainly adopted this clumsy child. The Report states that this creation of his had:
a totally mistaken initial structure.
The Labour Government repeatedly poured money into the company in the belief that it would become viable. But the report shows the extent of the financial implications. Losses from pre-existing contracts were estimated at £3½ million but in the event totalled over £12 million. Further losses on new contracts were estimated at just under £5 million but totalled about £10 million.

Mr. Benn: Would the hon. Gentleman address his mind to the point he has raised, namely, that there were £12 million losses for these five companies, every one of which would have been totally bankrupt with 100 per cent. unemployment if U.C.S. had not been brought forward, by the companies, to the Government?

Mr. MacArthur: The right hon. Gentleman will recognise that this shows how totally false these forecasts were, just as the right hon. Gentleman beside him was totally wrong about his forecasts for the Scottish economy.
The right hon. Member for Kilmarnock (Mr. Ross) promised 60,000 extra jobs for Scotland. He failed, and lost 82,000 on top of them. All those forecasts made by the Labour Government were hollow and bogus.
The result of the miscalculations by right hon. Gentlemen has been that vast sums of public funds have vanished. The whole investment of taxpayers' money made by the Labour Government has melted away with nothing to show except disaster.
The right hon. Member for Bristol, South-East himself recognised that this continuing subsidy must stop and that the company must acquire a new structure. In his evidence to the Select Committee on Scottish Affairs in 1969 he made various statements which completely contradict the line he now takes. I quote


from just one extract although there are pages of it. This is on page 265, paragraph 1456, when he says:
My own view is that if we had at any stage even now said 'We will give you whatever you need' we should have deferred the vital decisions that had to be taken by the company to staunch the losses and we should have begun a permanent subsidy of a company that would then ultimately have collapsed in conditions of great tragedy for those involved, at the expense meanwhile of the viability of other shipbuilding groups.
But now the right hon. Gentleman appears to insist that the Government should go on subsidising the company. The justification he advances is that it will become viable, or would do, if it was supported in this way. In the debate on the Scottish economy on 13th July, the right hon. Gentleman called on the Government to give the company
… the resources to allow it to move into viability."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 13th July, 1971; Vol. 821, c. 255.]
Refusal to provide this blank cheque of resources is the linch-pin of his whole argument.
Early this year but as late as the spring, U.C.S. appeared to believe that it had turned the corner. Yet in June it asked, not for another £5 million as suggested earlier, but for £5 million to £6 million and proposed in addition to pay off its creditors at 33p in the £. Far more than £5 million to £6 million was involved in that request, and there was no clear statement of when the company would become solvent again, if at all. That I remind the House, was against the background in which this request was made—one of impending bankruptcy, suddenly discovered by the management—so suddenly that it could not pay the wages for the following week.
The Report gives a totally different picture from that painted by hon. Gentlemen opposite. The suggestion that U.C.S. has improved its structure has been knocked sideways by the Report. The Report said:
no improvement in facilities, no worthwhile investment has been made.
So there has been no development to create greater viability. Indeed, the Report says that:
… any continuation of Upper Clyde Shipbuilders in its present form would be wholly unjustified and, indeed, could cause serious and more widespread damage.

There are only two courses open to the Government.
One is to retain the present structure, inefficient, with a dangerously thin order book, and a future that will demand constant subsidy or an even larger collapse. There is no security of employment on this shaky base. The other course is to save what can viably be saved, and this is what the report proposes. In that way at least a large number of secure and long-term jobs will be produced, and that surely is the quality of employment which we need in Scotland—secure and long-term employment.
At least 1,000 jobs are immediately available elsewhere on the Clyde. The growth of Govan will produce more than the initial 2,500 jobs suggested in the Report. Successful disposal of the other yards will also retain jobs for some.
But whatever the pattern, there will be many redundancies in the end. This is the social problem which confronts us all. These men cannot be discarded simply as the price to be paid for incompetent intervention by a Labour Government. We need a constructive programme of special help, retraining, and careful redeployment in a situation of economic growth JO that we may lessen the real and personal tragedies in this wholly tragic affair.

5.40 p.m.

Mr. Russell Johnston: Like the hon. Member for Glasgow, Cathcart (Mr. Edward Taylor), I shall be brief. Nor do I intend to go over the past, save to applaud the suggestion of the right hon. Member for Bristol, South-East (Mr. Benn), repeated by the hon. Member for Glasgow, Craigton (Mr. Millan) in a particularly fine speech, that a Select Committee should be set up to establish the truth, for there is clearly a conflict over precisely what is the truth. I see no reason for the Government to resist this request.
In the short time at my disposal I wish to look ahead. The Government have a responsibility to maintain these skilled men in employment. It is no use using words, as the hon. Member for Perth and East Perthshire (Mr. MacArthur) did, like "redeployment". The action must be practical, definite and immediate.
A number of proposals have been made. As the hon. Member for Craigton


said, it will not be easy to solve this problem. Government action may mitigate the difficulties, but a number of world factors are in operation which cannot be set aside. The debate is, in many ways, not only about Upper Clyde but about the future of the whole of the Clyde as a major shipbuilding centre of the world.
When I spoke in the debate on the Scottish economy on 13th July I drew attention to a proposal that had been made by Mr. R. A. Robertson of Hutchison Engineering. Mr. Robertson, is highly experienced in shipbuilding and knows what he is talking about. He has been industrial adviser to the Scottish Liberal Party for about five years. His proposal has since received considerable publicity, both in the Scottish Daily Express on 26th July and in an editorial in the Scotsman on 30th July. Jack McGill, Industrial Correspondent of the Daily Express, wrote:
The scheme, if given backing by the Government and the Steel Corporation, could place shipbuilding in line with the Japanese groups which have shipyards next door to steel plants. And it would give a new steel complex at Hunterston a guaranteed customers using about 2 million tons of steel a year".
The editorial in the Scotsman followed the same tack and said:
The Clyde has a long and illustrious association with shipbuilding. But an issue that ought to be objectively faced is whether the Upper Clyde can hold a worth-while place in world shipbuilding indefinitely. Is a movement down the estuary not inevitable and, if so, would it not be much better to plan a new modern industry in close co-operation with the proposed integrated steel works at Hunterston? A holding operation in U.C.S. and a bold forward plan could inspire confidence".
That seems to offer the answer, and I spoke about this last month.
If speeches in this House mean anything—and I sometimes wonder whether they do—and if Ministers take cognisance of informed comment outside, then on what basis has any consideration of this proposal been set aside?
Is it because the Minister sees no long-term future for shipbuilding on the Clyde in the big league? This view has been expressed. Is it, on the other hand—this, too, is worrying some people in Scotland—that despite the right hon. Gentle-

man having mortgaged his future on the Hunterston steel complex, in the end it will not go ahead? That is a current rumour in Scotland.
I will briefly repeat what I believe represents the only coherent answer to this tragedy. First, there should be a holding operation at U.C.S., and it should involve private enterprise, the Government and the B.S.C. Second, there should simultaneously be constructed a new super yard on the Lower Clyde into which U.C.S. would be phased. Third, we must realise that both operations are dependent on the go-ahead at Hunterston, which the right hon. Gentleman has pledged will take place. All these steps are linked with Oceanspan and the idea of a deep water terminal.
I said at the beginning that this debate is about the future of the Clyde and not just about Upper Clyde. Like the hon. Member for Glasgow, Scotstoun (Mr. Small), who knows the position well—who knows the men, their families and their commitments—I urge the Minister to think again on an issue that is vital for Scotland and the Clyde.

5.45 p.m.

Mr. John Rankin: I, too, shall be brief, and in doing so I wish to deal with an aspect of our problem which has not received much attention.
A lot has been said about the period since 1967. I want to go back to 1964, for at the root of the present difficulties, and the trouble that has blown up in the last three years—trouble which the Government are not facing up to adequately—are occurrences prior to 1967.
While I appreciate that the Minister is trying to solve this problem and while I accept that in his view he is spending a lot of money, I urge him to accept that he is not spending nearly sufficient to tackle the job that lies ahead. The solution demands more investment than he is prepared to make, and it is clear that on this as on other matters he has changed what was Labour policy.
One Sunday morning in 1964 I received an urgent message saying that I was expected to attend a meeting of shop stewards at Fairfields Yard that evening. I was told that the then owners, Lithgow's, were leaving Fairfields to go to


Lower Clydeside. About 3,000 workmen at Fairfields were given a week's notice that Lithgow's were flitting, leaving the yard and the men with absolutely no future.
It was calculated that £1 million would help the yard to survive, and I had to be the instrument of finding the money. I came to London and asked the then Prime Minister, who mercifully was a Socialist, for £1 million. Having listened to the Secretary of State today, I need not wonder for long what his answer would have been. I will not name the then Prime Minister. He is sufficiently well know especially on these benches, for me simply to say that he told me, in effect, "Do not worry. The million is safe. You can go back and tell that to the workers on Clydeside." That is precisely what I did.
I brought new life and hope to the men, but our troubles were only just beginning. We had £1 million with which to start, but to make this launching place reasonably usuable that sum was not enough even to begin looking at a corner of our problem. This is still true and is basically still the problem. Although the Government may recognise the problem—I do not doubt their word about that—I tell them they are not spending nearly sufficient, and that problem of expenditure did not start in 1967 but before 1964, although there have been adjustments, as we know, and it has been growing ever since.
I wonder whether the right hon. Gentleman has thought what kinds of problems there are within a yard. I wonder whether he has ever glimpsed a yard such as I know well which only six years ago was a muddy squashy heap in which to work. There were few facilities. Men have to be educated, however, for this work. So we had a small school in one part of the yard, but for practical purposes so small a place was not much use. It was merely a gesture. However, after only three years of Labour Government and of Labour looking after Fairfields we had one of the best equipped educational centres of any possessed by any shipyard in the whole of Britain. We have it in Govan still. The right hon. Gentleman can see for himself to verify what I am saying. It is competent; well equipped; but still insufficiently equipped

for training the men for this industry: that is, to train them in all the knowledge and knowhow which is needed. That is why it is necessary to have a school and to have teachers. In 1964 we had little of that. As I say, we got it right away from the Labour Government, but it is still not big enough.
So I tell the right hon. Gentleman, we need still more money. When he goes to Clydeside—tomorrow, I believe—I wonder if he will take the time—I know he will not regard is as a trouble— to see the office for those who are responsible for general working conditions and for seeing that the jobs are carried out; the shop stewards. Will he see where they work? Their conditions are a disgrace. Their office is quite unsatisfactory. They are disgraceful conditions for the educated lads who today have to perform this particular work. They have no obvious usable sanitation. The men who work there, as has been emphasised by every speaker from either side of the House in the debate have a responsible and big job to do. [Interruption.] I wish these half-heard interruptions would not persist across the Floor of the House while I am speaking. I know I have a limited time in which to speak and I shall observe the limitation.
We want these men who have these responsible jobs to be housed in offices and under conditions which are comparable with those in which the owners of the yard operate, in which the bosses operate. We want them to have this sort of equality—if I may so put it, to have that social status. They ought to be decently housed in their parts of the yard because, as has been inherent in almost every speech today, and although much blame has been attached to some of them, in their own way they have as great a responsibility for the success of the yard as have the owners themselves.
I am dealing with these conditions because I have seen them, and have seen how bad they can be, and they are the social conditions which obtain in some yards. Six years ago in Fairfields there was not a place in the office where a girl could get a cup of tea; it had to be brought in and she had to drink it in her part of the office. There was no rest room where tea or lunch could be served in conditions more in keeping with the age in which we are living.


I know I am bound to a certain time limit, and that I shall observe, but, having listened to so much today about the amount of money which was being spent in keeping shipbuilding going, I felt I should like to point out if I got the opportunity that while I recognise that this is a good investment it is still not enough, because there is so much needed in the supporting services for this great industry which is not being adequately catered for. I want to make that quite clear, and I hope that if the right hon. Gentleman thinks he is spending too much he will have another thought about it and pay some attention to what I have said and approach this problem of expenditure from a different angle. I hope he will consider the conditions and services which exist for the men and women who are serving in these yards and that he will unloosen his purse-strings.

5.59 p.m.

Mr. William Ross: This has been a worth-while debate, although—let us face it—it has been a debate which no single right hon. or hon. Member on the other side of the House wanted. It is one of the things to be remembered that when the House was asked whether we should have this debate—and it required the support of a certain number of Members—not one single Member on the Government side rose in support of having it.

Mr. Dick Douglas: Not even the hon. Member for Glasgow, Cathcart (Mr. Edward Taylor).

Mrs. Ross: That will not be forgotten. This has been a worth-while debate. Those who thought that it would be a slashing attack on my right hon. Friend the Member for Bristol, South-East (Mr. Benn) got their answer. I have never heard a more devastating, analytical, summing-up of all the arguments, all the facts and all the dates than the speech of my right hon. Friend to destroy the case which the right hon. Gentleman was going to make.
I was involved, too, with U.C.S. and the shipbuilding industry. Remember, not a single vote was cast against the Shipbuilding Industry Bill; anyone who knew anything about shipbuilding welcomed it. Only one person on the Government side who knows anything about the shipbuilding industry has spoken today,

and that is the hon. Member for Glasgow, Cathcart (Mr. Edward Taylor), who resigned from the Government last week on a different issue. His was the only speech which showed a consciousness of the gravity of the situation and of the Government's decision.
The right hon. Gentleman said that after I had seen these four men I had said that they were not men who were out to do a hatchet job. That shows how mistaken one can be. In the discussions that we had with them, there was no indication that they would put pen to such a report. That report, read carefully, does no credit to any of these gentlemen. It is a political document.
The hon. Member for Glasgow, Hill-head (Mr. Galbraith) and the right hon. Gentleman seemed to think that it was ludicrous even to mention the Ridley report, but that report was drawn up by the hon. Member for Cirencester and Tewkesbury (Mr. Ridley) when he was Shadow Minister in charge of shipbuilding. To whom was it given? It was given to the Shadow Cabinet. What was the result? He was made a Minister. What Department was he put into—the Department responsible for shipbuilding. We are told to forget about it. Yet every single thing that has happened has followed the plan that was laid down within that report, and the hiatus between November and February in relation to credits was because of certain difficulties in hiving off Yarrow.
The right hon. Gentleman said, either in his statement or in answer to a supplementary question, that the advisory group had the advantage of the assistance of experts in shipbuilding. Who were they? Were they the people whom the hon. Member for Cirencester and Tewkesbury saw? Was it Yarrow? Was it Scott and Lithgow? It could not have been those who were connected with the Shipbuilding Industry Board, the men whose judgment and advice to the Government has been condemned today—but not at the time. It is not surprising, if the people who were advising the group were the people who advised the hon. Gentleman, that we should get the same kind of report.
The right hon. Gentleman spoke about order books. How does he expect any company in a difficult time to build up orders when he is holding up credits? He


knows that credits to the value of £53 million were held up from late October until the end of February—indeed, I think it was March before they were released.
Has the right hon. Gentleman seen the advice issued to every Member of Parliament who is interested in shipbuilding, from the Information Office of the Shipbuilders and Repairers National Association, the National Association of Marine Enginebuilders, the British Ship Research Association and British Shipbuilding Exports? This document refers to the drop in orders and says of the lower tonnage being ordered:
This change in the situation compared with a year ago is the result of the uncertainties over credit in the earlier part of the year, coupled with the effect of the removal of investment grants towards the end of 1970.
Who was responsible for withdrawing investment grants?—the right hon. Gentleman before the study was even set up. The document goes on to say:
… forecasts suggest that in the longer term there will be an overall growth in tonnage requirements … the world's shipping capacity is being expanded.
The suggestion is that our shipbuilding capacity should be looked after. This fits in with what was said by the hon. Member for Cathcart. The document goes on to say:
Industry must also be able to rely upon the active support of the Government, for while shipbuilders would prefer to operate freely, it is unrealistic to think that any country without official help can compete with those nations where State aid in various forms is available.
The right hon. Gentleman, far from helping U.C.S., went out of his way to kill it. He suggests that he has been unfairly attacked for seeming to be cold and callous, but his recent statement on television that he wanted to get a down-to-earth solution was no more helpful. Down-to-earth? Six feet down! That is what it means for the Clyde. Anyone producing a report like this can expect sense, but the right hon. Gentleman expected more than that; he expected a vote of thanks for it.
I lost my temper, and I have not yet regained it because my sense of anger and outrage has not been allayed by anything said by the right hon. Gentleman today. He seemed to think that we should take this calmly. The hon. Member for Perth and East Perthshire (Mr. Mac-

Arthur) said that we whipped up the feelings of the men on the Clyde. He should ask the hon. Member for Cathcart, who knows something about the people of Glasgow. They did not require their feelings to be whipped up; they required to be restrained.

Mrs. Mac Arthur: Who restrained them?

Mrs. Ross: I welcome the fact that the right hon. Gentleman and the Secretary of State for Scotland are going to the Clyde tomorrow. I am perfectly sure that they will not need a bodyguard, but I wish they had gone before they made this decision.
The report says that the four gentlemen took into account the social considerations. My hon. Friends the Members for Dunbartonshire, East (Mr. McCartney), Glasgow, Craigton (Mr. Millan) and Glasgow, Scotstoun (Mr. Small) put the social considerations fairly clearly, and I know a little about them. I spoke angrily about Clydebank, but the right hon. Gentleman should appreciate that the people who died during the war in Clydebank died for John Brown's. The enemy was not aiming at people, but at John Brown's, and the one place that was not touched was John Brown's, but the Government are going to kill it—a firm which is the pride of this country. How we gloried when the QE2 was launched and fitted out and finally sailed. The right hon. Gentleman the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry spoke about modernisation. I wonder how much modernisation can be done in a yard when one is building a ship of that size and fitting it out. Has he any appreciation of the difficulties involved in achieving modernisation? The one place where modernisation was embarked upon was in that part which was hived off.
The right hon. Gentleman has no appreciation at all of the feelings of the people and the quality of the men concerned in regard to the view in February that viability could be achieved in U.C.S. Has he paid any attention to the improvements that took place in steel throughput, organisation and efficiency?
The right hon. Gentleman said that the shipyards in Britain, not just those in the Clyde, had been ridden with demarcation disputes, not in one year only. I recently read the history of


Glasgow and discovered that even in 1642 there were demarcation fights. The fact that all this has been reduced within this yard to an extent that is envied elsewhere is a demonstration that something was being achieved. All this is being thrown away.
I hope the Government will still change their mind. Scotland has never had a worse Government.

Mrs. Galbraith: Come off it.

Mrs. Ross: The hon. Member for Hillhead must know that of over 30 M.P.s in the Greater Glasgow area only two are Tories—and he is one of them. The other hon. Member for that area, the hon. Member for Glasgow, Cathcart, spoke much more sincerely today because he is closer to the kind of people who work in the yards. They got no support from the Scottish people at election time. But that does not mean to say that the Government ought to write off those people. If anything, they should combine their efforts to improve the situation.
They know that 134,000 people were unemployed in Scotland in July and that in August the figure will be nearly 140,000. Some of the children who left school at the beginning of July and who have been on holiday will in August register for employment. Thus the figure will rise, as it did last year.

Mrs. Lena Jeger: Why does not someone wake up Ted?

Mr. Ross: It is too late for him to wake up. The Government are playing ducks and drakes with the Scottish economy—they are lame ducks and weekend Drakes. But there is still time for them to change their mind, and I sincerely hope that they will.
There is far too much at stake; the whole spirit and economy of Scotland is in the balance. We do not want to see Scotland turned again into a reservoir—a pool of labour for the Midlands, London and the South-East. We do not want to see lovely areas in the north of Scotland a playground only for the absentee rich. That is not the future we see for Scotland.
If the Government want a better tomorrow for Scotland, let them start on this path tomorrow when they go up

there. Let them tear up this report and let them save U.C.S. Let them go forward with a reconstruction that makes sense and with a confidence in the potential of that unequalled and unrivalled work force that will be for the benefit of Scotland and for the country as a whole. If they do not do this, they will be labelled—and that label will not be torn off easily—as betrayers of the people of Scotland.

6.14 p.m.

The Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr. Gordon Campbell): Many of the speeches in today's debate have reflected a sombre and worrying situation on Clyde-side, which has been causing great concern to me personally and to the Government. For Scotland, and for the west of Scotland in particular, this sudden liquidation, its possible consequences and the debates upon it are matters of the greatest gravity.
The problems are painfully serious in human terms, because men's livelihoods are directly affected. In any realistic examination of U.C.S., in the light of the Report of the Advisory Group, it is clear that jobs are likely to be lost or changed in numbers which will create anxiety and difficulty for many families. I am acutely conscious of the effects of a reduction in jobs upon the men who may be affected and their families. It is an additional misfortune that this liquidation should have happened at a time when unemployment rates are so high in the Glasgow area—[HON. MEMBERS: "What are you going to do about it?"]
Since the U.C.S. Board made its statement of imminent liquidation, I have myself seen in Scotland and London many deputations and representatives of workpeople, local authorities and others concerned. I am well aware of the shock, indeed the stunning effect, that the U.C.S. announcement of liquidation and the subsequent finding by the liquidator of debts of £32 million have caused. I feel myself, and share, the bitterness that this situation creates. Many of the men thought their jobs were secure. It is depressing for them now to find that many of the jobs in U.C.S. have been highly insecure since its inception.
My right hon. Friend and I will be visiting Glasgow tomorrow, having been


in touch with the Lord Provost, for discussions in the City Chamber with representatives of all concerned.
For this situation, the previous Government must bear a large share of the responsibility.

Mr. Ross: Mr. Ross rose—

Hon. Members: Give way.

Mr. Campbell: The group of advisers said that U.C.S. was a totally mistaken initial structure and criticised management from the beginning. Upper Clyde Shipbuilders was set up at the instigation of the right hon. Member for Bristol, South-East (Mr. Benn), and few will disagree with the four advisers that it was ill-conceived.

Mr. Ross: The right hon. Gentleman voted for it.

Mr. Campbell: We in Scotland are now having to cope with the results of this failure and to try to mitigate its social effects. In this situation, we have not only to try to achieve the best possible continuing shipbuilding organisation on the Upper Clyde but also to grapple with the problems of redundancies, reducing as far as possible the number out of work at any given time.
It is clear that about 1,000 jobs in shipbuilding will become progressively available elsewhere on the Clyde from now on, and that there are prospects of more, depending on how the liquidator is able to dispose of yards.
At the time the U.C.S. announced that it had to go into liquidation the Government appointed the group of four advisers to study urgently the situation and make recommendations. There has been criticism that the Report is only three pages long, but to be of use such recommendations had to be made immediately because they had to be well within the limited period in which, in Scotland, a provisional liquidation can last. The Government had guaranteed the wages necessary for that period.
The Advisory Group clearly has not spared itself in the work it has carried out. It was able by last week to produce a Report with clear findings and recommendations. Besides Lord Robens, the group contains leading and distinguished Scots experienced in industry and finance.
Clearly, these men were and are essentially concerned to recommend what is in the best interests of Scotland and Clyde-side. When considering their Report the House should have in mind that it has been made by men who fervently wish to see Clydeside and Scotland prosper. Nothing would have been better news to me or to the Government than if this Group had recommended the full continuance in work of the total force. This would have been universally welcomed. What it has done is to set out clearly the facts as it found them and to propose the only workable future reconstruction which it considers feasible, and it depends upon certain conditions.
Would those on the Opposition Front Bench if they had been in government have repudiated the findings of this Group of advisers and its recommendations? [Interruption] It has not been stated categorically in the debate, but I take it from that that they would have set aside this important advice.
Those concerned with Scotland must face up to the situation described by the Group. Through the centuries Scots in adversity have been prepared to face the facts, however unpalatable, rather than surround themselves with more palatable make-believe.
Having received this Report, it would have been deceiving ourselves and deceiving Scotland to have rejected it. It has been suggested that the Report is short and does not argue a long case supported by figures. However, in the time required the Group has produced findings and recommendations which are both lucid and unequivocal. As for figures, the liquidator has made that position clear. Had the Report of the Group gone into all the figures at length, right hon. and hon. Members opposite would have been the first to say that it was simply an accountants' document.
The Advisory Group has recommended a scheme under which shipbuilding on the Upper Clyde can confidently be continued. It is subject to certain important conditions, but I see no reason why it should not be fulfilled. In Scotland, we must surely concentrate on doing all we can to enable that scheme to get started to work. It would be folly, simply because of disappointment over the facts and the findings of the four advisers, if we were to nullify the prospect of 2,500


firm jobs at Govan and Linthouse with the possibility of future expansion.

Mr. Benn: What we are asking for are the working documents which lie behind the Report. Will the Secretary of State publish the working documents so that the House can judge the cost of alternative policies which were before the Cabinet when it reached its decision?

Mr. Campbell: The Group of advisers was asked to produce a Report urgently in the time before the end of the provisional liquidation. Hon. Members opposite challenged us only last Tuesday to publish the Report, and this we have done.
All who, like me, want to see successful shipbuilding on the Upper Clyde must encourage the co-operation and effort required by us in Scotland to follow up and help the Govan-Linthouse project.
Interest has also been shown by possible purchasers in the Scotstoun and Clydebank yards during the period of provisional liquidation. The prospect of work being continued at one or both with continuing employment must not be overlooked or prejudiced by unthinking reaction. This is a matter for the liquidator. He has the task of disposal. However, the future of these assets should not be ignored in terms of possible additional employment.
In reply to my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Cathcart (Mr. Edward Taylor), the Government do not have closed minds to possible assistance for successor projects.
In the debate on the Consolidated Fund (Appropriation) (No. 2) Bill last Tuesday night, the right hon. Member for Kilmarnock (Mr. Ross), as my right hon. Friend reminded him, said that he was impressed by the quality of the four advisers. He went on to say this:
We ought to see that report and what advice is offered to the Government and balance against that the decision that the Government eventually take."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 27th July, 1971; Vol. 822, c. 381–2.]
That is what has happened. The right hon. Gentleman made those remarks late on Tuesday night. Within 48 hours he changed his mind. What caused him to do that?
In the debate last Tuesday the right hon. Member for Bristol, South-East

made a comment about employers on the Lower Clyde which caused the Scott Lithgow shipbuilding group to make an immediate comment to repudiate his suggestion. The Glasgow Herald of Thursday, 29th July, contained this report:
The Scott Lithgow shipbuilding group on the lower reaches of the Clyde reacted sharply last night to suggestions in the House of Commons that they would be happy to see more unemployment on the Upper Clyde. The claim, by Mr. Anthony Wedgwood Benn, Labour M.P. for South-East Bristol, that the lower reaches management would like to see higher unemployment on the Upper Clyde to improve lower reaches recruiting was dismissed as 'ridiculous'.
' His comments are quite unjustified by the facts', a group official said.
The right hon. Gentleman has caused quite enough damage to us in Scotland by his mistakes and bad judgment when he was a Minister. On top of the follies which he committed on the Upper Clyde he has now added a suggestion which I can only describe as diabolical.

Mr. Benn: Mr. Benn rose—

Mr. Campbell: No, in view of the time. The shipbuilders on the Lower Clyde—

Mr. Benn: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I rise on a point of order because, when the report in the Glasgow Herald was brought to my attention and I—[HON. MEMBERS: "That is not a point of order."] On a point of order. This relates to a misprint of a single word in HANSARD which I dealt with fully in Scotland and which will be corrected in the bound volume of HANSARD.

Mr. Campbell: Mr. Campbell rose—

Hon. Members: Withdraw!

Mr. Campbell: I am referring to column 353 of the HANSARD issued on Wednesday, 28th July, 1971. If it is incorrect then I withdraw until I see the correct version. [HON. MEMBERS: "Withdraw."] I have withdrawn until I see the correct version.
In the wider context of the situation and the difficulties in West Central Scotland, this area on Clydeside has been singled out for very special help. Since February it has been made a special development area—[Laughter.]. This is not a laughing matter. Already, in the


five months since it has been so designated, although that is only a short period, the number of jobs coming in through the I.D.C. application is more than four times greater than in the equivalent period in the previous year—

Mr. Ross: How many jobs have been lost?

Mr. Campbell: —a sign that this is already working.
The right hon. Member for Bristol, South-East is reported in the Press as having made statements which seemed to favour the setting up of communes. Is it his party's industrial policy that men should take over businesses and try to run them? Does he think that this will help British industry in the highly com-

petitive world of today? Or is he simply acting as a demagogue vainly trying to retrieve some plausibility, having himself been responsible for setting up U.C.S., the company whose failure is causing so much anguish in Scotland today? We understand that the Leader of the Opposition is going—[Interruption.]—to Glasgow on Wednesday. Will he—

Mr. Robert Mellish: Mr. Robert Mellish (Bermondsey) rose in his place and claimed to move, That the Question be now put.

Question, That the Question be now put, put and agreed to.

Question put accordingly, That this House do now adjourn:—

The House divided: Ayes 247, Noes 280.

Division No. 449.]
AYES
[16.30 p.m.


Albu, Austen
Davis, Terry (Bromsgrove)
Huckfield, Leslie


Allaun, Frank (Salford, E.)
de Freitas, Rt. Hn. Sir Geoffrey
Hughes, Rt. Hn. Cledwyn (Anglesey)


Allen, Scholefiled
Delargy, H. J.
Hughes, Mark (Durham)


Archer, Peter (Rowley Regis)
Dell, Rt. Hn. Edmund
Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen, N.)


Ashley, Jack
Dempsey, James
Hughes, Roy (Newport)


Ashton, Joe
Doig, Peter
Hunter, Adam


Atkinson, Norman
Douglas, Dick (Stirlingshire, E.)
lrvine, Rt.Hn.SirArthur (EdgeHill)


Bagier, Gordon A. T.
Douglas-Mann, Bruce
Janner, Greville


Barnes, Michael
Driberg, Tom
Jay, Rt. Hn. Douglas


Barnett, Guy (Greenwich)
Duffy, A. E. P.
Jeger, Mrs.Lena (H'b'n&St.P'cras, S.)


Barnett, Joel
Dunnett, Jack
Jenkins, Hugh (Putney)


Beaney, Alan
Eadie, Alex
Jenkins, Rt. Hn. Roy (Stechford)


Benn, Rt. Hn. Anthony Wedgwood
Edelman, Maurice
John, Brynmor


Bennett, James (Glasgow, Bridgeton)
Edwards, Robert (Bilston)
Johnson, Carol (Lewisham, S.)


Bidwell, Sydney
Edwards, William (Merioneth)
Johnson, James (K'ston-on-Hull, W.)


Bishop, E. S.
Ellis, Tom
Johnson, Walter (Derby, S.)


Blenkinsop, Arthur
English, Michael
Johnston, Russell (Inverness)


Boardman, H. (Leigh)
Evans, Fred
Jones, Barry (Flint, E.)



Faulds, Andrew



Booth, Albert
Fernyhough, Rt. Hn. E.
Jones, Dan (Burnley)


Bottomley, Rt. Hn. Artnur
Fisher, Mrs. Doris (B'ham, Ladywood)
Jones, Rt.Hn.Sir Elwyn (W.Ham, S.)


Boyden, James (Bishop Auckland)
Fitch, Alan (Wigan)
Jones, Gwynoro (Carmarthen)


Bradley, Tom
Fletcher, Ted (Darlington)
Jones, T. Alec (Rhondda, W.)


Brown, Bob (N'c'tle-upon-Tyne, W.)
Foley, Maurice
Kaufman, Gerald


Brown, Hugh D. (G'gow, Provan)
Foot, Michael
Kelley, Richard


Brown, Ronald (Shoreditch & F'bury)
Ford, Ben
Kerr, Russell


Buchan, Norman
Forrester, John
Kinnock, Neil


Buchanan, Richard (G'gow, Sp'burn)
Fraser, John (Norwood)
Lambie, David


Butler, Mrs. Joyce (Wood Green)
Galpern, Sir Meyer
Latham, Arthur


Callaghan, Rt. Hn. James
Garrett, W. E.
Lawson, George


Campbell, I (Dunbartonshire, w.)
Gilbert, Dr. John
Leadbitter, Ted


Cant, R. B.
Ginsburg, David
Lee, Rt. Hn. Fredrick


Carmichael, Neil
Golding, John
Leonard, Dick


Castle, Rt. Hn. Barbara
Gordon Walker, Rt. Hn. P. C.
Lever, Rt. Hn. Harold


Clark, David (Colne Valley)
Gourlay, Harry
Lewis, Arthur (W. Ham, N.)


Cocks, Michael (Bristol, S.)
Grant, George (Morpeth)
Lewis, Ron (Carlisle)


Coleman, Donald
Grant, John D. (Islington, E.)
Lipton, Marcus


Conlan, Bernard
Griffiths, Eddie (Brightside)
Loughlin, Charles


Corbet, Mrs. Freda
Hamilton, William (Fife, W.)
Lyon, Alexander W. (York)


Cox, Thomas (Wandsworth, C.)
Hamling, William
Lyons, Edward (Bradford, E.)


Crawshaw, Richard
Hannan, William (G'gow, Maryhill)
Mabon, Dr. J. Dickson


Crosland, Rt. Hn. Anthony
Hardy, Peter
McBride, Neil


Crossman, Rt. Hn. Richard
Harper, Joseph
McCartney, Hugh


Cunningham, G. (Islington, S.W.)
Harrison, Walter (Wakefield)
Mackenzie, Gregor


Dalyell, Tam
Hart, Rt. Hn. Judith
Mackie, John


Darling, Rt. Hn. George
Hattersley, Roy
Maclennan, Robert


Davidson, Arthur
Healey, Rt. Hn. Denis
McMillan, Tom (Glasgow, C.)


Davies, Denzil (Llanelty)
Heffer, Eric S.
McNamara, J. Kevin


Davies, G. Elfed (Rhondda, E.)
Hooson, Emlyn
Mallalieu, J. P. W. (Huddersfield, E.)


Davies, Ifor (Gower)
Horam, John
Marks, Kenneth


Davies, S. O. (Merthyr Tydvil)
Houghton, Rt. Hn. Douglas
Marquand, David


Davies, Clinton (Hackney, C.)
Howell, Denis (Small Heath)
Marsden, F.




Marshall, Dr. Edmund
Pendry, Tom
Stoddart, David (Swindon)


Mason, Rt. Hn. Roy
Pentland, Norman
Stonehouse, Rt. Hn. John


Mayhew, Christopher
Perry, Ernest G.
Strang, Gavin


Meacher, Michael
Prentice, Rt. Hn. Reg.
Summerskill, Hn. Dr. Shirley


Mellish, Rt. Hn. Robert
Prescott, John
Taverne, Dick


Mendelson, John
Price., J. T. (Westhoughton)
Thomas, Rt.Hn.George (Cardiff, W.)


Millan, Bruce
Probert, Arthur
Thomas, Jeffrey (Abertillery)


Miller, Dr. M. s.
Rankin, John
Thomson, Rt. Hn. G. (Dundee, E.)


Mitchell, R. C. (S'hampton, Itchen)
Reed, D. (Sedgefield)
Thorpe, Rt. Hn. Jeremy


Molloy, William
Rees, Merlyn (Leeds, S.)
Tinn, James


Morgan, Elystan (Cardiganshire)
Rhodes, Geoffrey
Tomney, Frank


Morris, Alfred (Wythenshawe)
Richard, Ivor
Torney, Tom


Morris, Charles R. (Openshaw)
Roberts, Albert (Normanton)
Tuck, Raphael


Morris, Rt. Hn. John (Aberavon)
Robertson, John (Paisley)
Urwin, T. W.


Moyle, Roland
Rodgers, William (Stockton-on-Tees)
Varley, Eric G.


Mulley, Rt. Hn. Frederick
Roper, John
Wainwright, Edwin


Murray, Ronald King
Rose, Paul B.
Walker, Harold (Doncaster)


Ogden, Eric
Ross, Rt. Hn. William (Kilmarnock)
Wallace, George


O'Halloran, Michael
Sandelson, Neville
Watkins, David


O'Malley, Brian
Sheldon, Robert (Ashton-under-Lyne)
Weitzman, David


Oram, Bert
Shore, Rt. Hn. Peter (Stepney)
Wells, William (Walsall, N.)


Orme, Stanley
Short, Mrs. Renée (W'hampton, N.E.)
Whitehead, Phillip


Oswald. Thomas
Silkin, Hn. S. C. (Dulwich)
Willey, Rt. Hn. Frederick




Williams, Alan (Swansea, W.)


Owen, Dr. David (Plymouth, Sutton)
Silverman, Julius
Williams, Mrs. Shirley (Hitchin)


Padley, Walter
Skinner, Dennis
Wilson, Alexander (Hamilton)


Paget, R. T.
Small, William
Wilson, Rt. Hn. Harold (Huyton)


Paisley, Rev. Ian
Smith, John (Lanarkshire, N.)
Wilson, William (Coventry, S.)


Palmer, Arthur
Spearing, Nigel
Woof, Robert


Pannell, Rt. Hn. Charles
Spriggs, Leslie



Parker, John (Dagenham)
Stallard, A. W.
TELLERS FOR THE AYES:


Parry, Robert (Liverpool, Exchange)
Steel, David
Mr. Ernest Armstrong and


Peart, Rt. Hn. Fred
Stewart, Rt. Hn. Michael (Fulham)
Mr. James Hamilton.




NOES


Adley, Robert
Churchill, W. S.
Goodhart, Philip


Alison, Michael (Barkston Ash)
Clark, William (Surrey, E.)
Goodhew, Victor


Allason, James (Hemel Hempstead)
Clarke, Kenneth (Rushcliffe)
Gorst, John


Amery, Rt. Hn. Julian
Clegg, Walter
Gower, Raymond


Archer, Jeffrey (Louth)
Cockeram, Eric
Grant, Anthony (Harrow, C.)


Atkins, Humphrey
Cooke, Robert
Cray, Hamish


Awdry, Daniel
Coombs, Derek
Green, Alan


Baker, Kenneth (St. Marylebone)
Corfield, Rt. Hn. Frederick
Grieve, Percy


Baker, W. H. K. (Banff)
Cormack, Patrick
Grylls, Michael


Balniel, Lord
Costain, A. P.
Gummer, Selwyn


Barber, Rt. Hn. Anthony
Critchley, Julian
Gurden, Harold


Batsford, Brian
Crouch, David
Hall, Miss Joan (Keighley)


Beamish, Col. Sir Tufton
Curran, Charles
Hall, John (Wycombe)


Bell, Ronald
Davies, Rt. Hn. John (Knutsford)
Hall-Davis, A. G. F.


Bennett, Sir Frederic (Torquay)
d'Avigdor-Goldsmid, Sir Henry
Hamilton, Michael (Salisbury)


Benyon, W.
d'Avigdor-Goldsmid, Maj.-Gen.James
Hannam, John (Exeter)


Berry, Hn. Anthony
Dean, Paul
Harrison, Brian (Maldon)


Biffen, John
Deedes, Rt. Hn. W. F.
Harrison, Col. Sir Harwood (Eye)


Biggs-Davison, John
Dixon, Piers
Haselhurst, Alan


Blaker, Peter
Douglas-Home, Rt. Hn. Sir Alec
Hastings, Stephen




Havers, Michael


Boardman, Tom (Leicester, S.W.)
Drayson, G. B.
Hawkins, Paul


Body, Richard
du Cann, Rt. Hn. Edward
Hay, John


Boscawen, Robert
Dykes, Hugh
Hayhoe, Barney


Bossom, Sir Clive
Eden, Sir John
Heath, Rt. Hn. Edward


Bowden, Andrew
Edwards, Nicholas (Pembroke)
Hicks, Robert


Boyd-Carpenter, Rt. Hn. John
Elliot, Capt. Walter (Carshalton)
Higgins, Terence L.


Braine, Bernard
Elliott, R. W. (N'c'tle-upon-Tyne, N.)
Hiley, Joseph


Bray, Ronald
Emery, Peter
Hill, John E. B. (Norfolk, S.)


Brewis, John
Farr, John
Hill, James (Southampton, Test)


Brinton, Sir Tatton
Fell, Anthony
Holt, Miss Mary


Brocklebank-Fowler, Christopher
Fenner, Mrs. Peggy
Hordern, Peter


Brown, Sir Edward (Bath)
Fidler, Michael
Hornby, Richard


Bruce-Gardyne, J.
Finsberg, Geoffrey (Hampstead)
Hornsby-Smith, Rt.Hn.Dame Patricia



Fisher, Nigel (Surbiton)



Bryan, Paul
Fookes, Miss Janet
Howe, Hn. Sir Geoffrey (Reigate)


Buchanan-Smith, Alick (Angus, N&M)
Fortescue, Tim
Howell, David (Guildford)


Buck, Antony
Foster, Sir John
Howell, Ralph (Norfolk, N.)


Bullus, Sir Eric
Fowler, Norman
Hunt, John


Burden, F. A.
Fox, Marcus
Hutchison, Michael Clark


Butler, Adam (Bosworth)
Fraser, Rt.Hn.Hugh (St'fford & Stone)
James, David


Campbell, Rt.Hn.G.(Moray&Nairn)
Fry, Peter
Jessel, Toby


Carlisle, Mark
Galbraith, Hn. T. G.
Johnson Smith, G. (E. Grinstead)


Carr, Rt. Hn. Robert
Gardner, Edward
Jopling, Michael


Cary, Sir Robert
Gibson-Watt, David
Kaberry, Sir Donald


Channon, Paul
Gilmour. Ian (Norfolk, C.)
Kershaw, Anthony


Chapman, Sydney
Gilmour, Sir John (Fife, E.)
Kilfedder, James


Chataway, Rt. Hn. Christopher
Glyn, Dr. Alan
Kimball, Marcus


Chichester-Clark, R.
Godber, Rt. Hn. J. B.
King, Evelyn (Dorset, S.)







Kinsey, J. R.
Nott, John
Sproat, lain


Kirk, Peter
Onslow, Cranley
Stanbrook, Ivor


Knox, David
Oppenheim, Mrs. Sally
Stewart-Smith, Geoffrey (Belper)


Lambton, Antony
Orr, Capt. L. P. S.
Stodart, Anthony (Edinburgh, W.)


Lane, David
Owen, Idris (Stockport, N.)
Stoddart-Scott, Col. Sir M.


Langford-Holt, Sir John
Page, Graham (Crosby)
Stokes, John


Legge-Bourke, Sir Harry
Page, John (Harrow, W.)
Stuttaford, Dr. Tom


Le Marchant, Spencer
Parkinson, Cecil (Enfield, w.)
Sutcliffe, John


Lewis, Kenneth (Rutland)
Peel, John
Tapsell, Peter


Lloyd, Ian (P'tsm'th, Langstone)
Percival, Ian
Taylor, Sir Charles (Eastbourne)


Longden, Gilbert
Pink, R. Bonner
Taylor, EdwardM.(G'gow, Cathcarl)


Loveridge, John
Pounder, Ration
Taylor, Frank (Moss Side)


Luce, R. N.
Powell, Rt. Hn. J. Enoch
Taylor, Robert (Croydon, N.W.)


McAdden, Sir Stephen
Price, David (Eastleigh)
Tebbit, Norman


MacArthur, Ian
Prior, Rt. Hn. J. M. L.
Temple, John M.


McCrindle, R. A.
Proudfoot, Wilfred
Thatcher, Rt. Hn. Mrs. Margaret


McLaren, Martin
Pym, Rt. Hn. Francis
Thomas, John Stradling (Monmouth)


Maclean, Sir Fitzroy
Quennell, Miss J. M.
Tilney, John


McMaster, Stanley
Raison, Timothy
Trafford, Dr. Anthony


Macmillan, Maurice (Farnham)
Rawlinson, Rt. Hn. Sir Peter
Trew, Peter


McNair-Wilson, Michael
Redmond, Robert
Tugendhat, Christopher


McNair-Wilson, Patrick (New Forest)
Reed, Laurance (Bolton, E.)
Turton, Rt. Hn. Sir Robin


Maddan, Martin
Rees, Peter (Dover)
van Straubenzee, W. R.


Madel, David
Rees-Davies, W. R.
Vaughan, Dr. Gerard


Maginnis, John E.
Renton, Rt. Hn. Sir David
Vickers, Dame Joan


Marten, Neil
Rhys Williams, Sir Brandon
Waddington, David


Mather, Carol
Ridley, Hn. Nicholas
Walder, David (Clitheroe)


Maude, Angus
Ridsdale, Julian
Walker, Rt. Hn. Peter (Worcester)


Mawby, Ray
Rippon, Rt. Hn. Geoffrey
Walker-Smith, Rt. Hn. Sir Derek


Maxwell-Hyslop, R. J.
Roberts, Wyn (Conway)
Wall, Patrick


Meyer, Sir Anthony
Rodgers, Sir John (Sevenoaks)
Walters, Dennis


Mills, Peter (Torrington)
Rost, Peter
Ward, Dame Irene


Mitchell, Lt.Col.C.(Aberdeenshire, W)
Royle, Anthony
Weatherill, Bernard


Mitchell, David (Basingstoke)
Russell, Sir Ronald
Wells, John (Maidstone)


Moate, Roger
St. John-Stevas, Norman
White, Roger (Gravesend)


Molyneaux, James
Scott, Nicholas
Whitelaw, Rt. Hn. William


Money, Ernle
Scott-Hopkins, James
Wiggin, Jerry


Monks, Mrs. Connie
Sharples, Richard
Wilkinson, John


Monro, Hector
Shaw, Michael (Sc'b'gh & Whitby)
Wood, Rt. Hn. Richard


Montgomery, Fergus
Shelton, William (Clapham)
Woodhouse, Hn. Christopher


Morgan-Giles, Rear-Adm.
Simeons, Charles
Woodnutt, Mark


Morrison, Charles (Devizes)
Sinclair, Sir George
Worsley, Marcus


Mudd, David
Skeet, T. H. H.
Wylie, Rt. Hn. N. R.


Murton, Oscar
Smith, Dudley (W'wick & L'mington)



Neave, Airey
Soref, Harold
TELLERS FOR THE NOES:


Noble, Rt. Hn. Michael
Speed, Keith
Mr. Reginald Eyre and


Normanton, Tom
Spence, John
Mr. Jasper More.

Orders of the Day — INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS BILL

[3RD ALLOTTED DAY]

Lords Amendments considered.

New Clause "B"

SUPPLEMENTARY PROVISIONS AS TO APPROVED CLOSED SHOP AGREEMENTS

Lords Amendment: No. 41, in page 14, line 24, at the end insert new Clause "B":
B.—(1) For the purposes of section 16(5)(a) of this Act a worker, notwithstanding that he has not expressly refused to become a member of a trade union with which an approved closed shop agreement was made, shall be treated as having so refused if he does not duly apply for membership of that trade union before the end of the relevant period or if, having applied for such membership, he withdraws that application.
(2) For the purposes of section 16(5) of this Act a worker shall be treated as having been excluded from being a member of a trade union if (but only if)—

(a) his application for membership of the trade union has been rejected, or he has been expelled from membership of the trade union, and
(b) the conditions specified in the next following subsection are fulfilled.
(3) The conditions referred to in subsection (2)(b) of this section are that—

(a) under the rules of the trade union the worker has a right of appeal against his rejection or expulsion, and
(b) his appeal has been heard and dismissed or has been withdrawn or the time for appealing has expired without his having exercised that right.
(4) Subject to the next following subsection, in this section "the relevant period" in the case of an approved closed shop agreement—

(a) in relation to a person who, on the date on which the agreement takes effect, is a worker to whom the agreement applies, means the period of three months from that date, and
(b) in relation to any other person, means the period of one month from the date on which he begins to be employed as a worker to whom the agreement applies.
(5) The Secretary of State may by order made by statutory instrument provide that, in so far as any approved closed shop agreement relates to workers engaged, or seeking to be engaged, in work of a description specified

in the order, subsection (4) of this section shall have effect as if, for the references to three months and one month, there were substituted references to such shorter periods as are specified in the order.

Order read for resuming adjourned debate on Question proposed [29th July] on consideration of Lords Amendments, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment.

Question again proposed.

6.40 p.m.

Mr. Charles Loughlin: The House will recall that we were discussing Lords Amendment No. 41, which has two cardinal features. One was the period which an employee, in the case of an approved closed shop, would have before he was compelled to join the union. The man who had been an employee at the time that the approved closed shop was agreed to would have three months grace and the new employee would have one month. The Solicitor-General will recall that I was deploying the argument that there were certain trades and industries where this would be difficult of application. I was referring to the fishing industry to illustrate the point.

The new Clause also allows the Secretary of State, where he deems it advisable, to reduce the period in the two cases to which I have referred.

I was trying to demonstrate that, concerning the fishing industry—I shall deal with another industry late—the Secretary of State, recognising that the periods of grace were far too long, would have to come to the House with orders which, even so, might have to be varied from time to time. A deep sea vessel could, for example, be out for three weeks. I do not want to go over the argument I deployed on Thursday. No doubt the Solicitor-General listened to it. He would be a bit of a masochist if he also read it. However, I think that he will recall the point that I was making.

If the Secretary of State deemed it advisable to come to the House to seek approval to reduce the period of grace concerning the deep sea section of the industry—that is, if we can discriminate, because we might have a situation where a particular firm to which the approved closed shop may apply operates both deep sea and middle water vessels—we


still have the problem of the middle-water vessels. We also have the problem of the variation in the period which a vessel may be at sea, because of the climatic conditions. The elements themselves may cause a variation in the period that a vessel may be at sea. We may have a similar situation with middle water vessels which spend periods of about a week at sea. Therefore, in practice, what has been described as a concession does not apply to the fishing industry.

My hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool, Walton (Mr. Heffer) is associated with the building industry. He knows a little more about that industry than I do, but I was surprised that he did not introduce into his speech the farcical nature of describing this as a concession to the building industry. Anyone who knows the building industry realises that, even with the major firms, there is a high degree of turnover of labour.

I do not wish to detain the House long. I think that the two industries to which I have referred clearly demonstrate that this so-called concession will not apply in the way that the Solicitor-General seems to think. It is not a concession at all. It is a concession on paper, but it will not be a concession in application.

6.45 p.m.

The Solicitor-General (Sir Geoffrey Howe): The concept of shortening the period from three months for a worker already employed and from one month for an incoming worker is in line with the concept already approved by the House in the context of the agency shop. The House will recall that my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary, when dealing with this point, said that the Secretary of State would give close consideration, in the context of any particular application, to the kind of point which the hon. Member for Gloucestershire, West (Mr. Loughlin) has put forward.
Originally, the corresponding provision dealing with the agency shop was stated to apply only to the construction industry. The special selection of that industry was in itself a recognition of the problems mentioned by the hon. Member for Liverpool, Walton (Mr. Heffer), to which the hon. Member for Gloucestershire, West has now returned. I vouchsafe the knowledge that, by his standards, I am a masochist because I have read as well as heard what he said last Thursday.
The points raised by the hon. Gentleman on other industries, including the fishing industry and the shipping industry generally, were made by his hon. Friend the Member for Kingston-upon-Hull, East (Mr. Prescott) when we considered the agency shop. It is for that reason that, concerning any industry, the powers are made available to the Secretary of State to shorten the period of grace to the extent which would be judged necessary in the light of considerations urged upon him.

Mr. Loughlin: My hon. Friend the Member for Kingston upon Hull, East (Mr. Prescott), to whom I referred on Thursday, was dealing specifically with the shipping industry. I am dealing with the fishing industry, which is a section of the shipping industry, where there are particular technical problems in applying a shorter period. Will the hon. and learned Gentleman address himself specifically to the shipping industry in this context?

The Solicitor-General: The hon. Gentleman says that there are particular technical problems in the fishing industry. I am sure that his hon. Friend the Member for Kingston upon Hull, East would acknowledge the particularity of that industry as part of the shipping industry. Certainly many of the problems are common to all industries. Plainly, they would have to be considered by the Secretary of State in the light of submissions made to him concerning an order under subsection (5). The Clause enables the Secretary of State to make an order curtailing either period of grace relating to work of a description specified in the order. So it would be open to him to consider each description of work and each industry or each section of industry according to its needs as established to him by the applicants. On that basis I commend the new Clause and invite the House to agree with the Lords in the said Amendment.

Mr. Stanley Orme: I have been asked on behalf of the Opposition to say that we find the explanation of the Solicitor-General, at the beginning and certainly now at the end, completely unconvincing. There is no doubt that the new Clause is a concession not to trade unions but to his right hon. Friend the Member for Kingston-upon-Thames (Mr. Boyd-Carpenter) and other hon. Members on his side of the House who felt


that the agency shop would bite too hard and too quickly upon non-unionists.
The Solicitor-General has dealt with the question of people applying for jobs but he would, I think, agree that subsection (2)(a) and (b) of the new Clause deals also with the expulsion of a member from a trade union. The normal machinery of appeal by a member takes about 12 months to operate in most unions; that is the length of time taken by the democratic appeal machinery. The situation could arise that a non-unionist was in a shop throughout the whole of that time.
The three months' provision would mean that a person could not be refused employment and that having started it if he were to give an indication that he would join a union, a period of three months would elapse. There could be a situation within a shop, in which an agency shop was supposed both to be covering trade unionists and excluding the free rider, that people who were not trade unionists were working for a considerable time. That was the point made to the House by the right hon. Member for Kingston-upon-Thames, who feared that people might be forced to join a union. The Clause gives those people the maximum opportunity to try to evade their responsibilities.
The Solicitor-General would have the right to come to the House with an order but as my hon. Friends have said, in certain industries in which there is an itinerant labour force or a labour force of the kind employed in shipping, fishing or the construction industry, before the order could operate people could come in and work for a short time, leave and never

come within the scope or the so-called agency shop.

This is just another indication that the Government, having introduced the agency shop, have been under pressure from their back-benchers and, therefore, have tried to ease the situation. As we have said on many occasions, it will not be difficult for workers, who will get guidance from all kinds of sources, to constitute a continual destructive irritant in this situation. That will be the type of worker who will lead to industrial action under the Bill, because the workers will say, "In these circumstances, the employer has the right to dismiss this person, but as soon as we ask for his dismissal we are told that there are all sorts of loopholes which allow a person to make false application to join a union." Who will decide the validity of the applications? Who will keep the works manager continuously chasing the worker, as though he does not have enough problems already?

Workers within the industry will say, "We are not having this. We have always had 100 per cent. trade unionism or this section of our factory trade union-organised, and it will remain so." By these little exclusions and delaying tactics, the Solicitor-General will bring upon himself and the Government all sorts of industrial problems and difficulties which I do not think he foresees. For these reasons, we ask for a vote on the new Clause.

Question put:—

The House divided: Ayes 277, Noes 239.

Division No. 450.]
AYES
[6.56 p.m.


Adley, Robert
Blaker, Peter
Butler, Adam (Bosworth)


Alison, Michael (Barkston Ash)
Boardman, Tom (Leicester, S.W.)
Carlisle, Mark


Allason, James (Hemel Hempstead)
Body, Richard
Carr, Rt. Hn. Robert


Amery, Bt. Hn. Julian
Boscawen, Robert
Channon, Paul


Archer, Jeffrey (Louth)
Bossom, Sir Clive
Chapman, Sydney


Atkins, Humphrey
Bowden, Andrew
Chataway, Rt. Hn. Christopher


Awdry, Daniel
Boyd-Carpenter, Rt. Hn. John
Chichester-Clark, R.


Baker, Kenneth (St Marylebone)
Braine, Bernard
Churchill, W. S.


Baker, W. H. K. (Banff)
Bray, Ronald
Clark, William (Surrey, E.)


Balniel, Lord
Brewis, John
Clarke, Kenneth (Rushcliffe)


Barber, Rt. Hn. Anthony
Brinton, Sir Tatton
Cockeram, Eric


Batsford, Brian
Brocklebank- Fowler, Christopher
Cooke, Robert


Beamish, Col. Sir Tufton
Brown, Sir Edward (Bath)
Coombs, Derek


Bell, Ronald
Bruce-Gardyne, J.
Corfield, Rt. Hn. Frederick


Bennett, Sir Frederic (Torquay)
Bryan, Paul
Cormack, Patrick


Benyon, W,
Buchanan-Smith, Alick (Angus, N&M)
Costain, A. P.


Berry, Hn. Anthony
Buck, Antony
Critchley, Julian


Biffen, John
Bullus, Sir Eric
Crouch, David


Biggs-Davison, John
Burden, F. A.
Curran, Charles




Davies, Rt. Hn. John (Knutsford)
James, David
Raison, Timothy


d'Avigdor-Goldsmid, Sir Henry
Jessel, Toby
Rawlinson, Rt. Hn. Sir Peter


d'Avigdor-Goldsmid, Maj.-Gen.James
Johnson Smith, G. (E. Grinstead)
Redmond, Robert


Dean, Paul
Johnston, Russell (Inverness)
Reed, Laurance (Bolton, E.)


Deedes, Bt. Hn. W. F.
Jopling, Michael
Rees, Peter (Dover)


Dodds-Parker, Douglas
Kaberry, Sir Donald
Rees-Davies, W. R.


Drayson, G. B.
Kershaw, Anthony
Rhys Williams, Sir Brandon


du Cann, Bt. Hn. Edward
Kilfedder, James
Ridley, Hn. Nicholas


Dykes, Hugh
Kimball, Marcus
Ridsdale, Julian


Eden, Sir John
King, Evelyn (Dorset, S.)
Roberts, Wyn (Conway)


Edwards, Nicholas (Pembroke)
Kinsey, J. R.
Rodgers, Sir John (Sevenoaks)


Elliot, Capt. Walter (Carshalton)
Kirk, Peter
Rost, Peter


Elliott, R. W. (N'c'tle-upon-Tyne, N.)
Kitson, Timothy
Russell, Sir Ronald


Emery, Peter
Knox, David
St. John-Stevas, Norman


Eyre, Reginald
Lambton, Antony
Scott, Nicholas


Farr, John
Lane, David
Scott-Hopkins, James


Fell, Anthony
Langford-Holt, Sir John
Sharples, Richard


Fenner, Mrs. Peggy
Legg-Bourke, Sir Harry
Shaw, Michael (Sc'b'gh & Whitby)


Fidler, Michael
Le Marchant, Spencer
Shelton, William (Clapham)


Finsberg, Geoffrey (Hampstead)
Lewis, Kenneth (Rutland)
Simeons, Charles


Fisher, Nigel (Surbiton)
Lloyd, Ian (P'tsm'th, Langstone)
Sinclair, Sir George


Fookes, Miss Janet
Longden, Gilbert
Skeet, T. H. H.


Fortescue, Tim
Loveridge, John
Smith, Dudley (W'wick & L'mingtot


Foster, Sir John
Luce, R. N.
Soref, Harold


Fowler, Norman
McAdden, Sir Stephen
Speed, Keith


Fox, Marcus
MacArthur, Ian
Spence, John


Fraser, Rt.Hn.Hugh (St'fford & Stone)
McCrindle, R. A.
Sproat, lain


Fry, Peter
Maclean, Sir Fitzroy
Stanbrook, Ivor


Galbraith, Hn. T. G.
McMaster, Stanley
Steel, David


Gardner, Edward
Macmillan, Maurice (Farnham)
Stewart-Smith, Geoffrey (Belper)


Gibson-Watt, David
McNair-Wilson, Michael
Stodart, Anthony (Edinburgh, W.)


Gilmour, Ian (Norfolk, C.)
McNair-Wilson, Patrick (NewForest)
Stoddart-Scott, Col. Sir M.


Gilmour, Sir John (Fife, E.)
Maddan, Martin
Stokes, John


Glyn, Dr. Alan
Madel, David
Stuttaford, Dr. Tom


Godber, Rt. Hn. J. B.
Maginnis, John E.
Sutcliffe, John


Goodhart, Philip
Marten, Neil
Taylor, Sir Charles (Eastbourne)


Goodhew, Victor
Mather, Carol
Taylor, Edward M.(G'gow, Cathcart)


Gorst, John
Maude. Angus
Taylor, Prank (Moss Side)


Gower, Raymond
Mawby, Ray
Taylor, Robert (Croydon, N.W.)


Grant, Anthony (Harrow, C.)
Maxwell-Hyslop, R. J.
Tebbit, Norman


Gray, Hamish
Meyer, Sir Anthony
Temple, John M.


Green, Alan
Mills, Peter (Torrington)
Thatcher, Rt. Hn. Mrs. Margaret


Grieve, Percy
Mitchell, Lt.-Col.C.(Aberdeenshire, W.)
Thomas, John Stradling (Monmouth)


Grimond, Bt. Hn. J.
Mitchell, David (Basingstoke)
Thorpe, Rt. Hn. Jeremy


Grylls, Michael
Moate, Roger
Tilney, John


Gummer, Selwyn
Molyneaux, James
Trafford, Dr. Anthony


Gurden, Harold
Money, Ernle
Trew, Peter


Hall, Miss Joan (Keighley)
Monks, Mrs. Connie
Tugendhat, Christopher


Hall, John (Wycombe)
Monro, Hector
Turton, Rt. Hn. Sir John


Hall-Davis, A. G. F.
Montgomery, Fergus
van Straubenzee, W. R.


Hamilton, Michael (Salisbury)
More, Jasper
Vaughan, Dr. Gerard


Hannam, John (Exeter)
Morgan-Giles, Rear-Adm.
Vickers, Dame Joan


Harrison, Brian (Maldon)
Morrison, Charles (Devizes)
Waddington, David



Mudd, David



Harrison, Col. Sir Harwood (Eye)
Murton, Oscar
Walder, David (Clitheroe)


Haselhurst, Alan
Neave, Airey
Walker, Rt. Hn. Peter (Worcester)


Hastings, Stephen
Noble, Rt. Hn. Michael
Walker-Smith, Rt. Hn. Sir Derek


Havers, Michael
Normanton, Tom
Wall, Patrick


Hay, John
Nott, John
Walters, Dennis


Hayhoe, Barney
Onslow, Cranley
Ward, Dame Irene


Hicks, Robert
Oppenheim, Mrs. Sally
Weatherill, Bernard


Higgins, Terence L.
Orr, Capt. L. P. S.
Wells, John (Maidstone)


Hiley, Joseph
Owen, Idris (Stockport, N.)
White, Roger (Gravesend)


Hill, John E. B. (Norfolk, S.)
Page, Graham (Crosby)
Whitelaw, Rt. Hn. William


Hill, James (Southampton, Test)
Paisley, Rev. Ian
Wiggin, Jerry


Holt, Miss Mary
Parkinson, Cecil (Enfield, W.)
Wilkinson, John


Hooson, Emlyn
Peel, John
Wood, Rt. Hn. Richard


Hordern, Peter
Percival, Ian
Woodhouse, Hn. Christopher


Hornby, Richard
Pink, R. Bonner
Woodnutt, Mark


Hornsby-Smith, Rt.Hn.Dame Patricia
Pounder, Rafton
Worsley, Marcus


Howe, Hn. Sir Geoffrey (Reigate)
Powell, Rt. Hn. J. Enoch
Wylie, Rt. Hn. N. R.


Howell, David (Guildford)
Price, David (Eastleigh)



Howell, Ralph (Norfolk, N.)
Prior, Rt. Hn. J. M. L.
TELLERS FOR THE AYES:


Hunt, John
Proudfoot, Wilfred
Mr. Walter Clegg and


Hutchison, Michael Clark
Quennell, Miss J. M.
Mr. Paul Hawkins.


Iremonger, T. L.






NOES


Albu, Austen
Ashley, Jack
Barnes, Michael


Allaun, Frank (Salford, E.)
Ashton, Joe
Barnett, Guy (Greenwich)


Allen, Scholefield
Atkinson, Norman
Barnett, Joel


Archer, Peter (Rowley Regis)
Bagier, Cordon A. T.
Beaney, Alan







Bern, Rt. Hn. Anthony Wedgwood
Hamilton, James (Bothwell)
Moyle, Roland


Bennett, James (Glasgow, Bridgeton)
Hamilton, William (Fife, W.)
Mulley, Rt. Hn. Frederick


Bidwell, Sydney
Hamling, William
Murray, Ronald King


Bishop, E. S.
Harman, William (G'gow, Maryhill)
Ogden, Eric


Blenkinsop, Arthur
Hardy, Peter
O'Halloran, Michael


Boardman, H. (Leigh)
Harper, Joseph
O'Malley, Brian


Booth, Albert
Harrison, Walter (Wakefield)
Oram, Bert


Bottomley, Rt. Hn. Arthur
Hart, Rt. Hn. Judith
Orme, Stanley


Boyden, James (Bishop Auckland)
Healey, Rt. Hn. Denis
Oswald, Thomas


Bradley, Tom
Heffer, Eric S.
Owen, Dr. David (Plymouth, Sutton)


Brown, Bob (N'c'tle-upon-Tyne, W.)
Horam, John
Padley, Walter


Brown, Hugh D. (G'gow, Provan)
Houghton, Rt. Hn. Douglas
Palmer, Arthur


Brown, Ronald (Shoreditch & F'bury)
Howell, Denis (Small Heath)
Panned, Rt. Hn. Charles


Buchan, Norman
Huckfield, Leslie
Parker, John (Dagenham)


Buchanan, Richard (G'gow, Sp'burn)
Hughes, Rt. Hn. Cledwyn (Anglesey)
Parry Robert (Liverpool, Exchange)


Butler, Mrs. Joyce (Wood Green)
Hughes, Mark (Durham)
Peart, Rt. Hn. Fred


Callaghan, Rt. Hn. James
Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen, N.)
Pendry, Tom


Campbell, I. (Dunbartonshire, W.)
Hughes, Roy (Newport)
Pentland, Norman


Cant, R. B.
Hunter, Adam
Perry, Ernest G.


Carmichael, Neil
Irvine, Rt.Hn.SirArthur (Edge Hill)
Prentice, Rt. Hn. Reg


Castle, Rt. Hn. Barbara
Janner, Greville
Prescott, John


Clark, David (Colne Valley)
Jay, Rt. Hn. Douglas
Price, J. T. (Westhoughton)


Cocks, Michael (Bristol, S.)
Jeger, Mrs.Lena (H'b'n&St.P'cras, S.)
Probert, Arthur


Coleman, Donald
Jenkins, Hugh (Putney)
Rankin, John


Conlan, Bernard
Jenkins, Rt. Hn. Roy (Stechford)
Reed, D. (Sedgefield)


Corbet, Mrs. Freda
John, Brynmor
Rees, Merlyn (Leeds, S.)


Cox, Thomas (Wandsworth, C.)
Johnson, Carol (Lewisham, S.)
Rhodes, Geoffrey


Crawshaw, Richard
Johnson, James (K'ston-on-Hull, W.)
Roberts, Albert (Normanton)


Cronin, John
Johnson, Walter (Derby, S.)
Roberts, Rt.Hn.Goronwy (Caernarvon)


Crosland, Rt. Hn. Anthony
Jones, Barry (Flint, E.)
Robertson, John (Paisley)


Cunningham, G. (Islington, S.W.)
Jones, Dan (Burnley)
Rodgers, William (Stockton-on-Tees)


Dalyell, Tam
Jones, Rt.Hn.Sir Elwyn (W.Ham, S.)
Roper, John


Darling, Rt. Hn. George
Jones, Gwynoro (Carmarthen)
Rose, Paul B.


Davidson, Arthur
Jones, T. Alec (Rnondda, W.)
Sandelson, Neville


Davies, Denzil (Llanelly)
Kaufman, Gerald
Sheldon, Robert (Ashton-under-Lyne)


Davies, G. Elfed (Rhondda, E.)
Kelley, Richard
Shore, Rt. Hn. Peter (Stepney)


Davies, Ifor (Gower)
Kerr, Russell
Short, Mrs. Renée (W'hampton, N.E.)


Davies, S. O. (Merthyr Tydvil)
kinnock, Neil
Silkin, Hn. S. C. (Dulwich)


Davis, Clinton (Hackney, C.)
Lambie, David
Silverman, Julius


Davis, Terry (Bromsgrove)
Latham, Arthur
Skinner, Dennis


de Freitas, Rt. Hn. Sir Geoffrey
Lawson, George
Small, William


Delargy, H. J.
Leadbitter, Ted
Smith, John (Lanarkshire, N.)


Dell, Rt. Hn. Edmund
Lee, Rt. Hn. Frederick
Spearing, Nigel


Dempsey, James
Leonard, Dick
Spriggs, Leslie


Doig, Peter
Lewis, Arthur (W. Ham, N.)
Stallard, A. W.


Douglas, Dick (Stirlingshire, E.)
Lewis, Ron (Carlisle)
Stewart, Rt. Hn. Michael (Fulham)


Douglas-Mann, Bruce
Lipton, Marcus
Stoddart, David (Swindon)


Driberg, Tom
Loughlin, Charles
Stonehouse, Rt. Hn. John


Duffy, A, E. P.
Lyon, Alexander W. (York)
Strang, Gavin




Summerskill, Hn. Dr. Shirley


Dunnett, Jack
Lyons, Edward (Bradford, E.)
Taverne, Dick


Eadie, Alex
Mabon, Dr. J. Dickson
Thomas, Rt.Hn.George (Cardiff, W.)


Edelman, Maurice
McBride, Neil
Thomas, Jeffrey (Abertillery)


Edwards, Robert (Bilston)
McCartney, Hugh
Thomson, Rt. Hn. G. (Dundee, E.)


Edwards, William (Merioneth)
McGuire, Michael
Tinn, James


Ellis, Tom
Mackenzie, Gregor
Tomney, Frank


English, Michael
Mackie, John
Tuck, Raphael


Evans, Fred
Maclennan, Robert
Urwin, T. W.


Faulds, Andrew
McMillan, Tom (Glasgow, C.)
Varley, Eric G.


Fernyhough, Rt. Hn. E.
McNamara, J. Kevin
Wainwright, Edwin


Fisher, Mrs.Doris (B' ham, Ladywood)
Mallalieu, J. P. W. Huddersfield, E.)
Walker, Harold (Doncaster)


Fitch, Alan (Wigan)
Marks, Kenneth
Wallace, George


Fletcher, Ted (Darlington)
Marquand, David
Watkins, David


Foley, Maurice
Marsden, F.
Weitzman, David


Foot, Michael
Marshall, Dr. Edmund
Wells, William (Walsall, N.)


Ford, Ben
Mason, Rt. Hn. Roy
Whitehead, Phillip


Forrester, John
Meacher, Michael
Willey, Rt. Hn. Frederick


Fraser, John (Norwood)
Mellish, Rt. Hn. Robert
Williams, Alan (Swansea, W.)


Freeson, Reginald
Mendelson, John
Williams, Mrs. Shirley (Hitchin)


Galpern, Sir Myer
Millan, Bruce
Wilson, Alexander (Hamilton)


Garrett, W. E.
Miller, Dr. M. S.
Wilson, Rt. Hn. Harold (Huyton)


Gilbert, Dr. John
Milne, Edward (Blyth)
Wilson, William (Coventry, S.)


Ginsburg, David
Mitchell, R. C. (S'hampton, Itchen)
Woof, Robert


Gordon Walker, Rt. Hn. P. C.
Molloy, William



Gourlay, Harry
Morgan, Elystan (Cardiganshire)
TELLERS FOR THE NOES:


Grant, George (Morpeth)
Morris, Alfred (Wythenshawe)
Mr. Ernest Armstrong and


Grant, John D. (Islington, E.)
Morris, Charles R. (Openshaw)
Mr. John Golding.


Griffiths, Eddie (Brightside)
Morris, Rt. Hn. John (Aberavon)

Clause 18

WRITTEN PARTICULARS OF TERMS OF EMPLOYMENT

Lords Amendment: No. 42, in page 15, line 16, after "agreement" insert:
or an approved closed shop agreement".

7.0 p.m.

The Under-Secretary of State for Employment (Mr. Dudley Smith): I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment.

This Amendment is consequential to the inclusion in the Bill of the provisions in Clause 16 and Schedule I for approved closed shop agreements, which were added on Report in this House.

The rights conferred on employees under Clause 5 in respect of membership or non-membership of trade unions and taking part in trade union activities will apply to all contracts of employment. It is important that employees should be properly informed about them, and this can be most appropriately done through the written statement of the terms of their employment which employers are required to give to their employees under Section 4(1) of the Contracts of Employment Act, 1963. Clause 18(2)(a) therefore requires employers to include in that written statement a note indicating employees' rights under Clause 5 and, if an agency shop agreement applies to him, how it will affect those rights.

Now that the principle of the approved closed shop agreement has been incorporated in the Bill it becomes equally important that the note to be given to employees under this provision should indicate the effect of their rights under Clause 5 and any approved closed shop agreement that applies to them. We feel it necessary that this should be included; in fact it is the only reason for the Amendment.

Mr. Orme: The hon. Member refers to ''rights under Clause 5". I take it that he is referring to Clause 5(1)(a) and (b).

Mr. Smith: Yes, I am. As I was saying, the only reason why we are moving the Amendment is to regularise the situation by mentioning an approved closed shop agreement in the Clause.

Mrs. Barbara Castle: It is an interesting commentary on the way

the Government have handled the Bill that this is the first opportunity which this House has had of discussing those parts of the Bill which deal with the Contracts of Employment Act and the amendments to it, and so minor has our rôle been in the discussions on the Bill that even now we are prevented from considering this important part of it except in the narrow context of what has been decided in the other place. That is why we are now dealing with what may seem to be a small drafting point. I say "may seem to be" because those of us who have studied all the parts of the Bill, even though we have not been allowed by the Government to discuss them, know that the Under-Secretary of State was correct in a sense wider than mere drafting when he said that this Amendment is consequential on Clause 16, on the agency shop Clauses and, above all, on Clause 5.
We intend to vote against the Amendment because its significance goes far wider than mere drafting. The insertion of these words at this point in the Bill is a further mutilation of the right of an employee to belong to a trade union, a right which, in our opinion, ought to be embodied simply and expressly in his contract of employment. In discussing the Amendment, we are again highlighting the vast difference between the Secretary of State's approach to industrial relations and that of the Labour Government and my own Bill.
In preparing my White Paper and introducing my Industrial Relations Bill to the House just before the election, I always intended that the basic right to belong to a trade union should figure as an express provision in every worker's contract of employment. I went further: I intended that the written statement to which each employee is entitled under the Contracts of Employment Act should become a recruiting poster for trade unionism. Unlike the right hon. Gentleman, I believe that trade unionism is a good thing, that it is an expression of industrial democracy—

Mr. David Mitchell: Mr. David Mitchell (Basingstoke) rose—

Mrs. Castle: I have not mentioned the hon. Gentleman. I am sure that his right hon. Friend is perfectly capable of looking after himself.

Mr. Mitchell: How can the right hon. Lady assert that my right hon. Friend is


opposed to trade unionism when the first part of the Bill specifically spells out that this is one of its objectives?

Mrs. Castle: I was about to prove my statement. The hon. Gentleman should have contained himself. I think I am right in saying that, during the Committee stage on earlier parts of the Bill, he himself joined a chorus from his side saying that the Bill as then worded contained a distinct discouragement to join a union, and that is why the right hon. Gentleman had to modify his initial presentation in certain respects. I was about to substantiate the point I was making, in the context of the present Amendment, inhibited though we are—I say it again—by the narrowness of the scope within which we have to argue.
Unlike the right hon. Gentleman, I wanted the worker's little bit of paper which by law he must have after a certain period to be an active encouragement to him to join a union. In keeping with the propositions of the Donovan Commission, I believed it to be a good thing to suggest to workers, by every means in our power, that they ought to belong to a trade union.
7.15 p.m.
Therefore, in the Bill which I introduced just before the election, I set out in Clause 57 that the right of employees to belong to an independent trade union
shall be a term of the contract of employment of every employee
and in Clause 61 I went on to express that in these terms:
In section 4 of the Contracts of Employment Act 1963 (written particulars of terms of employment) the following subsection shall be inserted after subsection (3):—
'In addition to any particulars required by the foregoing provisions of this section to be included or referred to in it, the statement shall include the following words:—
The right of an employee to belong to an independent trade union … must not be obstructed by his employer; and an employee who is prevented or deterred from, or penalised for, belonging to an independent trade union, or is required or compelled to belong to a non-independent trade union or penalised for not belonging to it, may have a right to compensation from his employer".'".
That was to be on the written piece of paper which I thought the employee should have. What do we find in the present Amendment? The right hon. Gentleman has gone through the workers'

rights provisions of my Bill and has parodied and mutilated them. In Section 5 I spelled out the right—

The Solicitor-General: If the right hon. Lady is accusing my right hon. Friend of parodying and mutilating the workers' rights provisions of her Bill, would it not be fair to add the sentence in the notice which she omitted to read?—
An employer may, however, in some cases restrict an employee's choice as between two or more independent trade unions which are available to him".
It was an important part of the balance of her proposals that machinery was being established to enable selection of unions to be made. It is important that the whole notice should be read to the House.

Mrs. Castle: I am delighted that the hon. and learned Gentleman has mentioned that. The only reason I did not was that it would have taken me into an elaborate separate argument, but I am perfectly happy to pursue it. Those words were put in in order to pinpoint the entitlement to the 100 per cent. union shop. If an employer has a union shop agreement with a particular union or unions, then, in order to enable that 100 per cent. union shop agreement to continue, one has to qualify the right to belong to an independent trade union by the words which the Solicitor-General has just read out.
But the Secretary of State and the Solicitor-General do not believe in the 100 per cent. union shop. They have made it clear in their version of the little bit of paper. They make clear that the right to belong to the trade union is paralleled by the right not to belong to a trade union. The little bit of paper will make clear that there is to be no right to a 100 per cent. union shop. Instead, as the subsection shows, we are to have written into the bit of paper the provisions for an agency shop agreement. Equally, by this Amendment it is to be made clear in the little bit of paper that there is no right to a closed shop. [Interruption.] There is no right for a union so to organise and pressurise that it can have its closed shop, and the approved closed shop agreement, limited as it is, can be introduced only with the agreement of the employer. There must be a joint


application by the employer and the union.
Therefore, in the little bit of paper all those qualifications of trade union rights are now to be written in. The Amendment is to write into the contract of employment one more of the Government's restrictions on the simple trade union rights which trade unions thought they had won by organising and struggling over the years, and which we on this side think the law should underpin and no! mutilate in this way.
Therefore, we draw the attention of the House to the vast change the Bill introduces compared with my proposals. The statement is no longer to be a recruitment poster for trade unionism but on the contrary is to be one in which every employee is to be warned that this Government have decided what are the limits of trade union rights and that they intend to enforce them through their new machinery of unfair industrial practices. We shall oppose the Amendment.

Mr. Orme: It is evident that the Government are feeling so anxious that if they think that they have left a loophole anywhere they quickly take action to close the door or batten down the hatches. [Interruption.] I am using nautical language because I think that my hon. Friend the Member for Kingston upon Hull, East (Mr. Prescott) may have something further to say about how the Amendment will directly affect seamen.
The Government are not satisfied with having the agency shop mentioned in the contract of employment, but feel that they must underline it by dealing with any concession they may appear to have made. My hon. Friends in the industries affected feel that there has been no real concession. But where it appears that there may be a concession the Government feel that they must write in that the same conditions must apply in an approved closed shop agreement.
It was very interesting that the Under-Secretary also felt it important to mention Clause 5. When I asked whether he was referring to subsection (1)(a) and (b) he confirmed that he was. In other words, it will be made crystal clear to employees when they receive the contract of employment, whether they work in an agency shop or an approved closed shop, that the non-union clause operates

and is cardinal to the Government's policy.
Since we have begun consideration of Lords Amendments, the Secretary of State and the Solicitor-General have often reacted violently when we have said that their proposals are anti-trade union, and they have gone out of their way to try to refute our allegations.

Mr. David Mitchell: Very successfully.

Mr. Orme: Does the hon. Gentleman wish to intervene?

Mr. Mitchell: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for giving way. I merely commented that the Government have been very successful in refuting the charge that they are in any way anti-trade union.

Mr. Orme: If that is so, why have the Government gone to the lengths of inserting the provision in the contracts of employment? Why do they feel it so essential to insert those words?
Throughout the Bill, whenever we have a reference to trade unions, an agency shop agreement or the right to organise, it is always counter-balanced with the right not to belong to a trade union and not to organise. The Government are more in favour of non-organisation than of organisation. The Minister would not have referred to Clause 5 if he had not intended this to be taken seriously. When the contract of employment is handed to an employee, what is provided in the Amendment will be a cardinal point of that contract.

Mr. Tom King: I find great difficulty in following the hon. Gentleman. I accept his dislike of Clause 5, but, putting aside the merits of the contents, as we are dealing with an individual's rights and Parliament decides what those rights should be, surely the hon. Gentleman is not saying that there is something improper in telling individuals where they stand?

Mr. Orme: My right hon. Friend said that she wanted to have written in fully the right to join a trade union. When we start off on the Government's premises, the exact opposite can be written in if the Government think fit. I am completely opposed to that. The question of trade unions and employers is a matter for them. That is why my hon. Friends and I are so opposed to the Bill,


because it starts off by writing in these rights or non-rights, which become part of the legal system, supported by references to all types of unfair industrial practices, the right to go to the courts and so on. That sets us off down a trail to which I am completely opposed. When people are in favour of the sort of thing the Government are in favour of, they start writing it in, and that is why the Bill has become so thick. It has grown like Topsy, because the Government's advisers say "When you come to the contract of employment you should insert these words to safeguard the position". So it goes on. There is no end to the way in which such points can be added with a legal application.

Mr. Ronald King Murray: Has my hon. Friend noticed that whereas the right join a union has set against it the right not to join, the right of organisations of workers to become trade unions does not have a corresponding right not to be trade unions? That is, an organisation of workers has a right to register, but not a right not to do so, because if it does not it is no longer even a trade union.

Mr. Orme: My hon. and learned Friend, with his legal expertise, has put his finger on a salient point, that the Government do not honestly follow through their own dictum. Where it suits them, they start to bend the rules and put the emphasis where they think it is in the interests of the Bill. That is why we say that the Government are anti-trade union. We are opposed to the way in which they are trying to tighten up everything and do not want to leave any loophole.

The Clause is meant to be a simple exposition of contracts of employment, spelling out to the worker his basic entitlements with regard to conditions, holidays and so on. That is a normal procedure which has developed quite extensively in recent years in industrial relations. But it is felt now that it is a matter of policy to tell a worker that he has a right not to belong to a trade union It is because of that that my hon. Friends and I will vote against the Amendment.

7.30 p.m.

Mr. David Mitchell: I have been listening with growing astonishment to hon.

Members opposite. Indeed. I have had to thumb through the Order Paper to ensure that they were speaking to the same Amendment as appears there. Their speeches appear to have been addressed to some totally different Amendment. The Amendment is consequential upon acceptance of the Opposition's case that in certain circumstances there should be permitted a closed shop. The Government are amending the Bill in that sense.

Mr. Kevin McNamara: Our case is not that in certain circumstances there should be a closed shop but that in all circumstances there should be a closed shop.

Mr. Mitchell: I was saying that the Government have accepted Opposition pressure for a closed shop in certain circumstances. Consequently, it is necessary to amend Clause 18 in a minor way. How the hon. Member for Salford, West (Mr. Orme) can pile his mountain of rhetoric on this small Amendment by the Government, put down in order to meet a case which the Opposition has made, is beyond comprehension.

Mr. John Prescott: We are concerned particularly with putting into the Contracts of Employment Act a so-called right being proposed by the Government. This is the right, if he so desires, for a worker to be a member of a trade union of his choice, or, if he so desires, not to be a member of a trade union or other organisation of workers, with, of course, certain exceptions.
It has been my experience with contracts of employment that they are worth very little in that an employer required to give them is not subject to great sanctions if he fails to observe them. I myself have appeared before industrial tribunals on behalf of members of my union, when it has been found that, whilst a contract of employment was given to a person, the fact that it was not observed did not carry a penalty upon the employer. I have been looking through the Contracts of Employment Act to see what sanctions are available against employers who do not observe them. If these rights are so important, perhaps the Government will explain what sanctions there are against an employer who does not embody them in a so-called contract of employment.
We are considering an Amendment extending the right of a written contract of employment into an approved closed shop situation. It has been strongly emphasised by hon. Members opposite that the closed shop situation has been introduced in order to deal with certain circumstances—namely, those of the shipping industry and of Equity. Other bodies may be involved, but these are the two instances most quoted in discussion of the approved closed shop and the agency shop. But Section 6(2) of the Act says:
The foregoing Sections of this Act shall not apply to—

(a) a person employed as master of or a seaman on a seagoing British ship having a gross registered tonnage of 80 tons or more, including a person ordinarily employed as a seaman who is employed in or about such a ship in port by the owner or charterer of the ship to do work of a kind ordinarily done by a seaman on such a ship while it is in port …"
The point here is that the provision exempts seamen from contracts of employment and they are surely, therefore, exempt from this proposal. Perhaps the hon. and learned Gentleman will explain the situation.

The Solicitor-General: The general attack mounted by the right hon. Member for Blackburn (Mrs. Castle) and the hon. Member for Salford, West (Mr. Orme), and to some extent by the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, East (Mr. Prescott), has been to the effect that this is another part of our attack on the concept of the closed shop. That is wide of the mark. As my hon. Friend the Member for Basingstoke (Mr. David Mitchell) pointed out, this provision will ensure that where a closed shop agreement or agency shop agreement exists, in effect it diminishes the right not to belong—that is, there is an obligation on the worker to belong to a union in an approved closed shop or to belong or to contribute in an agency shop—and his rights should be clearly set out under the Contracts of Employment Act. So far from this being a derogation of trade union rights, we are requiring the employer to make clear to the worker the conditions of employment in that place of work. That is surely a logical step.

Mrs. Castle: But the hon. and learned Gentleman is missing the logical point. If the Government had not started off by

eroding trade union rights in the first place by prohibiting the closed shop, it would not now be necessary to highlight the restriction by saying that now there might be a loophole.

The Solicitor-General: The right hon. Lady is entitled to hark back to what has been debated time and time again, but the House and the country know the Government's attitude to the closed shop. All we are providing here is that when a worker is in employment or is going into employment he is entitled to know what his obligations are where a closed shop or an agency shop exists. The right hon. Lady sought to make a retrospective commercial for her own legislation, saying that her Bill would have had the effect of being a recruiting poster for trade unionism, stressing that this would be done by making trade union rights part of the contract of employment. But that was one of the substantial deficiencies in her approach, because if one confines trade union membership rights to contracts of employment one makes those rights available only to a employee—someone already in employment—and they are of no effect at all in preventing an employer from refusing to engage someone on grounds of union membership.
We go further in two respects. We do so in Clause 5(2)(c) in which we ensure that the right extends to, for example, labour-only sub-contractors and by making a remedy available even to those who have not been engaged. I do not want to make a great virtue out of the semantic difference between operating on contracts of employment and the way in which we have chosen to proceed, save to point out that the foundation for the right hon. Lady's claim is fairly slender.
The hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, East mentioned the machinery. Of course the Contracts of Employment Act does not apply, as he has indicated, to people in the merchant shipping industry. In fact the notice issued under the Contracts of Employment Act does not have to be issued in any event until 13 weeks after entry into employment. Of course that was the position as provided for in the original 1963 Act.
That position was not changed in the right hon. Lady's Bill. The right hon. Lady's great charter, her recruiting poster for trade unionism, applied or did not


apply to exactly the same extent as this to the industry with which the hon. Gentleman is concerned. We cannot on either side of the House achieve perfection in the application of these provisions extending and annunciating rights so as to cover every industry at the outset. It is not a valid criticism to say that in these two respects our machinery is not exactly the same as that proposed by the right hon. Lady.
I return to the somewhat uncharacteristically abstruse point raised by the hon. and learned Member for Edinburgh, Leith (Mr. Ronald King Murray) in which he sought to cast across to the other side of the Chamber, to his hon. Friend the Member for Salford, West, a rather elaborate and very difficult to follow parallel between a trade union member's rights and a trade union organisation's rights. I admired the way in which the hon. Member for Salford,

West was just able to pick up the pass without knocking it on. He says that the Government are inconsistent when we provide that the status of registration is not something which should be fundamental to a union in the sense that to achieve the definition of being a trade union one needs to be registered. In that respect we are consistent with the Donovan Commission and "In Place of Strife".

I fancy that the hon. and learned Member had best return to Murrayfield and handle a ball more adapted to his purpose, although we always welcome his adventurous intrusions into these debates.

Question put, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment:—

The House divided: Ayes 273, Noes 235.

Division No. 451.]
AYES
[7.43 p.m.


Adley, Robert
Cockeram, Eric
Grant, Anthony (Harrow, C.)


Alison, Michael (Barkston Ash)
Cooke, Robert
Gray, Hamish


Allason, James (Hemel Hempstead)
Coombs, Derek
Green, Alan


Archer, Jeffrey (Louth)
Corfield, Rt. Hn. Frederick
Grieve, Percy


Atkins, Humphrey
Cormack, Patrick
Grimond, Rt. Hn. J.


Awdry, Daniel
Costain, A. P.
Grylls, Michael


Baker, Kenneth (St. Marylebone)
Critchley, Julian
Gummer, Selwyn


Baker, W. H. K. (Banff)
Crouch, David
Gurden, Harold


Balniel, Lord
Curran, Charles
Hall, Miss Joan (Keighley)


Barber, Rt. Hn. Anthony
d'Avigdor-Goldsmid, Sir Henry
Hall, John (Wycombe)


Batsford, Brian
d'Avigdor-Goldsmid, Maj.-Gen.James
Hall-Davis, A. G. F.


Beamish, Col. Sir Tufton
Dean, Paul
Hamilton, Michael (Salisbury)


Bell, Ronald
Deedes, Rt. Hn. W. F.
Hannam, John (Exeter)


Bennett, Sir Frederic (Torquay)
Dodds-Parker, Douglas
Harrison, Col. Sir Harwood (Eye)


Benyon, W.
Drayson, G. B.
Haselhurst, Alan


Berry, Hn. Anthony
du Cann, Rt. Hn. Edward
Hastings, Stephen


Biffen, John
Eden, Sir John
Havers, Michael


Biggs-Davison, John
Edwards, Nicholas (Pembroke)
Hawkins, Paul


Blaker, Peter
Elliot, Capt. Walter (Carshalton)
Hay, John


Boardman, Tom (Leicester. S.W.)
Elliott, R. W. (N'c'tle-upon-Tyne, N.)
Hayhoe, Barney


Body, Richard
Emery, Peter
Hicks, Robert


Boscawen, Robert
Eyre, Reginald
Higgins, Terence L.


Bossom, Sir Clive
Farr, John
Hiley, Joseph


Bowden, Andrew
Fell, Anthony
Hill, John E. B. (Norfolk, S.)


Boyd-Carpenter, Rt. Hn. John
Fenner, Mrs. Peggy
Hill, James (Southampton, Test)


Braine, Bernard
Fidler, Michael
Holt, Miss Mary


Bray, Ronald
Finsberg, Geoffrey (Hampstead)
Hooson, Emlyn


Brewis, John
Fisher, Nigel (Surbiton)
Hordern, Peter


Brinton, Sir Tatton
Fookes, Miss Janet
Hornby, Richard


Brocklebank-Fowler, Christopher
Fortescue, Tim
Hornsby-Smith, Rt.Hn.Dame Patricia


Brown, Sir Edward (Bath)
Foster, Sir John
Howe, Hn. Sir Geoffrey (Reigate)


Bruce-Gardyne, J.
Fowler, Norman
Howell, David (Guildford)


Bryan, Paul
Fox, Marcus
Howell, Ralph (Norfolk, N.)


Buchanan-Smith, Alick (Angus, N&M)
Fraser, Rt.Hn.Hugh (St'fford & Stone)
Hunt, John


Buck, Antony
Fry, Peter
Hutchison, Michael Clark


Bullus, Sir Eric
Galbraith, Hn. T. G.
Iremonger, T. L.


Burden, F. A.
Gardner, Edward
James, David


Butler, Adam (Bosworth)
Gibson-Watt, David
Jesse, Toby


Carlisle, Mark
Gilmour, Ian (Norfolk, C.)
Johnson Smith, G. (E. Grinstead)


Carr, Rt. Hn. Robert
Gilmour, Sir John (Fife, E.)
Jopling, Michael


Chapman, Sydney
Glyn, Dr. Alan
Kaberry, Sir Donald


Chataway, Rt. Hn. Christopher
Godber, Rt. Hn. J. B.
Kershaw, Anthony


Chichester-Clark, R.
Goodhart, Philip
Kilfedder, James


Churchill, W. S.
Goodhew, Victor
Kimball, Marcus


Clark, William (Surrey, E.)
Gorst, John
King, Evelyn (Dorset, S.)


Clarke, Kenneth (Rushcliffe)
Gower, Raymond
Kinsey, J. R.


Clegg, Walter






Kirk, Peter
Normanton, Tom
Stanbrook, Ivor


Kitson, Timothy
Nott, John
Steel, David


Knox, David
Onslow, Cranley
Stewart-Smith, Geoffrey (Belper)


Lambton, Antony
Oppenheim, Mrs. Sally
Stodart, Anthony (Edinburgh, W.)


Lane, David
Orr, Capt. L. P. S.
Stoddart-Scott, Col. Sir M.


Langford-Holt, Sir John
Owen, Idris (Stockport, N.)
Stokes, John


Legge-Bourke, Sir Harry
Page, Graham (Crosby)
Stuttaford, Dr. Tom


Le Marchant, Spencer
Paisley, Rev. Ian
Sutcliffe, John


Lewis, Kenneth (Rutland)
Parkinson, Cecil (Enfietd, W.)
Tapsell, Peter


Lloyd, Ian (P'tsm'th, Langstone)
Peel, John
Taylor, Edward M.(G'gow, Cathcart)


Longden, Gilbert
Percival, Ian
Taylor, Frank (Moss Side)


Loveridge, John
Pink, R. Bonner
Taylor, Robert (Croydon, N.W.)


Luce, R. N.
Pounder, Rafton
Tebbit, Norman


McAdden, Sir Stephen
Powell, Rt. Hon. J. Enoch
Temple, John M.


MacArthur, Ian
Price, David (Eastleigh)
Thatcher, Rt. Hn. Mrs. Margaret


McCrindle, R. A.
Prior, Rt. Hn. J. M. L.
Thomas, John Stradling (Monmouth


Maclean, Sir Fitzroy
Proudfoot, Wilfred
Thorpe, Rt. Hn. Jeremy


McMaster, Stanley
Pym, Rt. Hn. Francis
Tilney, John


Macmillan, Maurice (Farnham)
Quennell, Miss J. M.
Trafford, Dr. Anthony


McNair-Wilson, Michael
Raison, Timothy
Trew, Peter


McNair-Wilson, Patrick (NewForest)
Rawlinson, Rt. Hn. Sir Peter
Tugendhat, Christopher


Maddan, Martin
Redmond, Robert
Turton, Rt. Hn. Sir Robin


Madel, David
Reed, Laurance (Bolton, E.)
van Straubenzee, W. R.


Maginnis, John E.
Rees, Peter (Dover)
Vaughan, Dr. Gerard


Marten, Neil
Rees-Davies, W. R.
Vickers, Dame Joan


Mather, Carol
Rhys Williams, Sir Brandon
Waddington, David


Maude, Angus
Ridley, Hn. Nicholas
Walder, David (Clitheroe)


Mawby, Ray
Ridsdale, Julian
Walker, Rt. Hn. Peter (Worcester)


Maxwell-Hyslop, R. J.
Roberts, Wyn (Conway)
Walker-Smith, Rt. Hn. Sir Derek


Meyer, Sir Anthony
Rodgers, Sir John (Sevenoaks)
Wall, Patrick


Mills, Peter (Torrington)
Rost, Peter
Walters, Dennis


Mitchell, Lt.-Col. C.(Aberdeenshire, W)
Russell, Sir Ronald
Ward, Dame Irene


Mitchell, David (Basingstoke)
St. John-Stevas, Norman
Wells, John (Maidstone)


Moate, Roger
Scott, Nicholas
White, Roger (Gravesend)


Molyneaux, James
Scott-Hopkins, James
Whitelaw, Rt. Hn. William


Money, Ernle
Sharples, Richard
Wiggin, Jerry


Monks, Mrs. Connie
Shaw, Michael (Sc'b'gh & Whitby)
Wilkinson, John




Wood, Rt. Hn. Richard


Monro, Hector
Shelton, William (Clapham)
Woodhouse, Hn. Christopher


Montgomery, Fergus
Simeons, Charles
Woodnutt, Mark


More, Jasper
Sinclair, Sir George
Worsley, Marcus


Morgan-Giles, Rear-Adm.
Skeet, T. H. H.
Wylie, Rt. Hn. N. R.


Morrison, Charles (Devizes)
Smith, Dudley (W'wick & L'mington)



Mudd, David
Soref, Harold
TELLERS FOR THE AYES:


Murton, Oscar
Speed, Keith
Mr. Bernard Weatherill and


Neave, Airey
Spence, John
Mr. Hugh Rossi.


Noble, Rt. Hn. Michael
Sproat, lain





NOES


Albu, Austen
Cocks, Michael (Bristol, S.)
Faulds, Andrew


Allaun, Frank (Salford, E.)
Conlan, Bernard
Fernyhough, Rt. Hn. E.


Allen, Scholefield
Corbet, Mrs. Freda
Fisher, Mrs.Doris (B'ham, Ladywood)


Archer, Peter (Rowley Regis)
Cox, Thomas (Wandsworth, C.)
Fitch, Alan (Wigan)


Armstrong, Ernest
Crawshaw, Richard
Fletcher, Ted (Darlington)


Ashley, Jack
Crosland, Rt. Hn. Anthony
Foley, Maurice


Ashton, Joe
Crossman, Rt. Hn. Richard
Foot, Michael


Atkinson, Norman
Cunningham, G. (Islington, S.W.)
Ford, Ben


Bagier, Gordon A. T.
Dalyell, Tam
Forrester, John


Barnes, Michael
Darling, Rt. Hn. George
Fraser, John (Norwood)


Barnett, Guy (Greenwich)
Davidson, Arthur
Freeson, Reginald


Barnett, Joel (Heywood & Royton)
Davies, Denzil (Llanelly)
Galpern, Sir Myer


Beaney, Alan
Davies, G. Elfed (Rhondda, E.)
Garrett, W. E.


Bennett, James (Glasgow, Bridgeton)
Davies, Ifor (Gower)
Gilbert, Dr. John


Bidwell, Sydney
Davies, S. O. (Merthyr Tydvil)
Ginsburg, David


Bishop, E. S,
Davis, Clinton (Hackney, C.)
Golding, John


Blenkinsop, Arthur
Davis, Terry (Bromsgrove)



Boardman, H. (Leigh)
de Freitas, Rt. Hn. Sir Geoffrey
Gordon Walker, Rt. Hn. P. C.


Booth, Albert
Delargy, H. J.
Gourlay, Harry


Bottomley, Rt. Hn. Arthur
Dell, Rt. Hn. Edmund
Grant, George (Morpeth)


Boyden, James (Bishop Auckland)
Dempsey, James
Grant, John D. (Islington, E.)


Bradley, Tom
Doig, Peter
Griffiths, Eddie (Brightside)


Brown, Bob (N'c'tle-upon-Tyne, W.)
Douglas, Dick (Stirlingshire, E.)
Hamilton, James (Bothwell)


Brown, Hugh D. (G'gow, Provan)
Douglas-Mann, Bruce
Hamilton, William (Fife, W.)


Brown, Ronald (Shoreditch & F'bury)
Driberg, Tom
Hamling, William


Buchan, Norman
Duffy, A. E. P.
Hannan, William (G'gow, Maryhill)


Buchanan, Richard (G'gow, Sp'burn)
Dunnett, Jack
Hardy, Peter


Butler, Mrs. Joyce (Wood Green)
Eadie, Alex
Harrison, Walter (Wakefield)


Callaghan, Rt. Hn. James
Edelman, Maurice
Hart, Rt. Hn. Judith


Campbell, I. (Dunbartonshire, W.)
Edwards, Robert (Bilston)
Healey, Rt. Hn. Denis


Cant, R. B.
Edwards, William (Merioneth)
Heffer, Eric S.


Carmichael, Neil
Ellis, Tom
Horam, John


Castle, Rt. Hn. Barbara
English, Michael
Houghton, Rt. Hn. Douglas


Clark, David (Colne Valley)
Evans, Fred
Howell, Denis (Small Heath)







Huckfield, Leslie
Marquand, David
Rodgers, William (Stockton-on-Tees)


Hughes, Rt. Hn. Cledwyn (Anglesey)
Marsden, F.
Roper, John


Hughes, Mark (Durham)
Marshall, Dr. Edmund
Rose, Paul, B.


Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen, N.)
Mason, Rt. Hn. Roy
Sandelson, Neville


Hughes, Roy (Newport)
Meacher, Michael
Sheldon, Robert (Ashton-under-Lyne)


Hunter, Adam
Mellish, Rt. Hn. Robert
Shore, Rt. Hn. Peter (Stepney)


Irvine, Rt.Hn.SirArthur (Edge Hill)
Mendelson, John
Short, Mrs. Renée (W'hampton, N.E.)


Janner, Greville
Millan, Bruce
Silkin, Hn. S. C. (Dulwich)


Jay, Rt. Hn. Douglas




Jeger, Mrs.Lena (H'b'n&St.P'cras, S.)
Miller, Dr. M. S.
Silverman, Julius


Jenkins, Hugh (Putney)
Milne, Edward (Blyth)
Skinner, Dermis


Jenkins, Rt. Hn. Roy (Stechford)
Mitchell, R. C. (S'hampton, Itchen)
Small, William


John, Brynmor
Molloy, William
Smith, John (Lanarkshire, N.)


Johnson, Carol (Lewisham, S.)
Morgan, Elystan (Cardiganshire)
Spearing, Nigel


Johnson, James (K'ston-on-Hull, W.)
Morris, Alfred (Wythenshawe)
Spriggs, Leslie


Johnson, Walter (Derby, S.)
Morris, Charles R. (Openshaw)
Stallard, A. W.


Jones, Barry (Flint, E.)
Morris, Rt. Hn. John (Aberavon)
Stewart, Rt. Hn. Michael (Fulham)




Stoddart, David (Swindon)


Jones, Dan (Burnley)
Moyle, Roland
Stonehouse, Rt. Hn. John


Jones, Rt.Hn.Sir Elwyn (W.Ham, S.)
Mulley, Rt. Hn. Frederick
Strang, Gavin


Jones, Gwynoro (Carmarthen)
Murray, Ronald King
Summer-skill, Hn. Dr. Shirley


Jones, T. Alec (Rhondda, w.)
Ogden, Eric
Taverne, Dick


Kaufman, Gerald
O'Halloran, Michael
Thomas, Rt.Hn.George (Cardiff, W.)


Kelley, Richard
O'Malley, Brian
Thomas, Jeffrey (Abertillery)


Kinnock, Neil
Oram, Bert
Thomson, Rt. Hn. G. (Dundee, E.)


Lambie, David
Orme, Stanley
Tinn, James


Latham, Arthur
Oswald, Thomas
Tomney, Frank


Lawson, George
Owen, Dr. David (Plymouth, Sutton)
Tuck, Raphael


Leadbitter, Ted
Padley, Walter
Urwin, T. W.


Lee, Rt. Hn. Frederick
Palmer, Arthur
Varley, Eric G.


Leonard, Dick
Pannell, Rt. Hn. Charles
Wainwright, Edwin


Lever, Rt. Hn. Harold
Parker, John (Dagenham)
Walker, Harold (Doncaster)


Lewis, Arthur (W. Ham, N.)
Parry, Robert (Liverpool, Exchange)
Wallace, George


Lewis, Ron (Carlisle)
Peart, Rt. Hn. Fred
Watkins, David


Loughlin, Charles
Pendry, Tom
Weitzman, David


Lyon, Alexander W. (York)
Pentland, Norman
Wells, William (Walsall, N.)


Lyons, Edward (Bradford, E.)
Perry, Ernest G.
Whitehead, Phillip


Mabon, Dr. J. Dickson

Willey, Rt. Hn. Frederick


McBride, Neil
Prentice, Rt. Hn. Reg.
Williams, Alan (Swansea, W.)


McCartney, Hugh
Prescott, John
Williams, Mrs. Shirley (Hitchin)


McGuire, Michael
Price, J T. (Westhoughton)
Wilson, Alexander (Hamilton)


Mackenzie, Gregor
Probert, Arthur
Wilson, William (Coventry, S.)


Mackie, John
Reed, D. (Sedgefield)
Woof, Robert


Maclennan, Robert
Rees, Merlyn (Leeds, S.)



McMillan, Tom (Glasgow, C.)
Rhodes, Geoffrey
TELLERS FOR THE NOES:


McNamara, J. Kevin
Roberts, Albert (Normanton)
Mr. Joseph Harper and


Mallalieu, J. P. W, (Huddersfield, E.)
Roberts, Rt.Hn.Goronwy (Caernarvon)
Mr. Donald Coleman.


Marks. Kenneth
Robertson, John (Paisley)

Lords Amendment: No. 43, in page 15, line 18, after "specifying" insert "by description or otherwise".

Mr. Dudley Smith: I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment.

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Robert Grant-Ferris): It will be for the convenience of the House if we also discuss Lords Amendments No. 44, in Page 15, line 18, leave out from "whom" to "and" in line 21 and insert:
the employee can apply for the purpose of seeking redress of any grievance relating to his employment
and No. 45, in page 15, line 24, leave out "subsequent steps in that procedure" and insert:
steps consequent upon any such application".

Mr. Dudley Smith: The sole purpose of these Amendments is clarification. They make it plain, first that when specifying a person to whom the employee

can apply when he has a grievance concerning his employment the employer is not required in that note given under subsection (2) of Clause 18 to identify the person by name.
Secondly, the Amendments make it clear that the note should tell the employee about the further steps in any grievance procedure which is available to him. The wording of subsection (2)(b) and (c) of Clause 18 was clarified in another place when these matters were debated, and as a consequence the Government undertook to look at the matter and to make Amendments.
Subsections (2)(b) and (c) require employers to include in the written statement of the terms of employment which they are required to give employees under the Contracts of Employment Act, 1963, a note specifying a person to whom an employee should apply if he has a grievance relating to his employment. The note should also say how he should apply and explain the subsequent steps


in any grievance procedure which is available.
It was stated in another place that the requirement in subsection (2)(b) to specify a person appeared to require employers to identify someone for this purpose by name and that this could create considerable difficulties, particularly for firms which experience frequent changes in personnel. We all know that this can happen in some industries. It is not our intention to create a stumbling block here by imposing the need to name a person. What we have in mind is that an employer should identify a person in such a way that the employee clearly knows to whom he should apply, when he has a grievance concerning his job. The person might well be identified for example by his title, "section foreman" or "departmental manager". The obligation over identification certainly can be used by the employer, if he wishes, to put a name to an individual, but this should not be obligatory.
In the circumstances, for the sake of clarity, we believe that it will be more helpful if the employer were able to delineate the job held by the person to whom application should be made rather than the name of that individual. I believe that this helps to clarify the matter, and I hope it will commend itself to hon. Members opposite.

Mr. Paul B. Rose: I accept that these are basically drafting Amendments for the purpose of clarification. In a sense, they are an acknowledgement of the impossibility of precision in many aspects of industrial relations. At least that small acknowledgement is welcome, because, as the hon. Gentleman has said, this avoids the need for identification by name and helps with the steps in relation to the grievance procedure. I must enter a caveat that what I find wholly abhorrent about the entire question is that the right to be a free rider or the so-called right to pay to two trade unions by reason of the agency shop is written into the contract of employment with instructions as to the person, now by description or otherwise, to whom application should be made when redress is sought.
To write into the contract of employment matters which ought to be within

the province of purely personal and working relationships with one's fellow employees is something that I find not only unnecessary but a violation of an employee's fundamental rights in a free society. To make thmat objective felt we on this side of the House will not divide on the Amendment but will make our opposition felt with regard to the Clause. It would not be right to divide on the very narrow ambit of the Amendments because they simply seek to clarify. Having said that I must add that we on this side of the House reject the entire context in which these Amendments are placed.

Question put and agreed to.

Subsequent Lords Amendments agreed to.

Clause 19

SUPPLEMENTARY PROVISIONS AS TO CONTRACTS OF EMPLOYMENT ACT 1963

Lords Amendment No. 46: In page 15, line 28, after "of" insert "Part I of".

The Secretary of State for Employment (Mr. Robert Carr): I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment.

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Robert Grant-Ferris): With this Amendment it would be convenient to discuss Amendments Nos. 47 and 299 to 304.

8.0 p.m.

Mr. Carr: I am sure that it will be for the convenience of the House to debate these Amendments together, because they form a distinct package. Amendments Nos. 46 and 47 are simply paving Amendments to the two substantive Amendments proposed to Schedule 2, which are the meat of this debate, and Amendment No. 299 is also no more than a paving one.

Amendments Nos. 300, 302, 303 and 304 go together and form the first substantial change proposed in Schedule 2, while Amendment No. 301 deals with the second important change. In explaining the purpose of Amendments Nos. 300, 302, 303 and 304, it might be helpful if I gave a brief explanation of the written statement provisions of the Con tracts of Employment Act, 1963.

Section 4(1) of that Act requires employees to be given within 13 weeks of starting work a written statement giving specified particulars of the main terms of their employment. Section 4(8), however, provides that employees who receive written contracts of employment that include those particulars need not, in addition, be given a written statement.

Clause 18(2) of the Bill requires that every written statement issued in accordance with Section 4(1) of the Act must in future include a note about the employees' rights under Clause 5, telling him also how to proceed if he has a grievance. These are matters which the House has just been discussing.

The aim of paragraph 4 of Schedule 2 was to make corresponding provision in the case of those employees who receive written contracts instead of written statements under the Act. It requires a note, as mentioned in Clause 18(2), to be incorporated in the individual contract of employment; and paragraph 9 anticipated this being treated as a variation of the contract. But it became clear that paragraph 4 as drafted would not adequately meet this situation.

A note of the kind mentioned in Clause 18(2), which is to be of an explanatory rather than of a contractual nature, would not easily be incorporated in a contract of employment. Moreover, to do so would mean that large employers who issue written contracts to their employees, instead of merely written statements under the Act, would be faced with a massive administrative exercise in having to draw up and issue every employee with either a complete written statement under the Act or a fresh written contract of employment, simply to include the variation introduced by Clause 18(2), and certainly it was never intended to place a burden of that magnitude on employers who issue their employees with written contracts.

This group of Amendments is, therefore, aimed at overcoming these difficulties by maintaining the validity of the existing contracts which employees may have, without the need for this change; that is, if the note as mentioned in Clause 18(2) is given to the employee separately, in addition to his written con-

tract, if he is given reasonable opportunity to read such a note in the course of his employment or if it is made reasonably accessible to him to do so.

However, if the additional note is not given or made accessible in this way within one month of the coming into operation of these provisions the employee will be regarded as no longer exempted under Clause 18, and will then have to be issued with a written statement under Section 4(1). In other words, if employers who have this problem act quickly and give their employees these additional notes, they will be saved the trouble of undertaking this massive administrative task.

We thought it right to limit this easing to a period of one month because it is important that all employees should be informed properly, formally and fully of their new rights under Clause 18. Thus, the new Part II to Schedule 2 which is contained in Amendment No. 304 reproduces Sections 4(1) to 4(9) of the Contracts of Employment Act, as amended by these provisions. We hope that this group of Amendments will ensure that individual employees will be made aware of the extra rights which they are getting under this part of the Bill, while saving employers a massive administrative effort which we do not believe to be necessary.

As far as we know, the Post Office is the principal employer affected and, therefore, helped by this group of Amendments. Post Office employees, other than casual labour, have, since 1st October, 1969, when the Post Office became a corporation, received written contracts of employment and not merely written statements. It is, therefore, mainly the Post Office we have in mind; but this position could arise, for all we know, with other employers.

That explains this group of Amendments dealing with the first point, and I believe that these proposals will be widely accepted and welcomed. I gather that they will not prove to be controversial.

Mrs. Eric S. Heffer: Before the right hon. Gentleman leaves this part of his proposals, may I ask him to be more explicit about his reference to employees having reasonable opportunities to read the contract? Does he envisage the document being placed on notice boards? How will these


particulars be made "reasonably available" to employees? Will he spell it out rather more fully?

Mr. Carr: That is a fair question which I should like to answer in detail. I should like to do some research into the meaning of "reasonable" in this context. I apologise for not having done it earlier, and perhaps it will be convenient if, later in this debate, either I or another Minister deals with the matter. I imagine that this is something on which trade unions will wish to comment in the normal course of negotiating and making arrangements with their members employers.
I come to the second major subject, namely that contained in Amendment No. 301. Whereas L hope and believe that the last subject will be considered helpful and non-controversial, I appreciate that this subject is likely to be more controversial. I wish to make it clear, first, that Amendment No. 301 does not change the original and declared intention expressed in paragraph 8 of Schedule 2. I may have got this wrong, but I have the feeling that some people believe that during the passage of the Bill we have deliberately put something in to tighten up, or make more stringent generally, our original intention. I assure the House that that is not so. For better or worse, our intention has been constant from the beginning.

Mr. Harold Walker: I take it that the right hon. Gentleman is saying that there is no substantial difference between paragraph 8 of Schedule 2 as drafted and the Amendment. Will he explain what appears to be a widening of the scope of the application of this provision, because whereas paragraph 8 refers to sub-paragraph (2) of Schedule 2 to the 1963 Act, that reference is omitted from Amendment No. 301. That omission seems to widen the scope of the original provision.

Mr. Carr: That may be so, and I admit that we did not translate our intentions adequately when paragraph 8 was drafted. I think I must admit frankly to the hon. Member. We have not widened our intention but I think that our original wording did not adequately translate our intention. This Amendment therefore was brought forward in another place because it became clear to us that paragraph 8 as

it stood, as I have just said, did not carry out what the Amendment does.
Now I will try to explain the position as it stands at the moment, and the purpose of what we propose to do. As the law stands at the moment a man who is entitled to a payment under an employer's sick pay scheme gets that payment, and it is a term in the great majority of these schemes that if he then draws National Insurance sickness benefit or industrial injury benefit the employer is able to offset that benefit against the payment he, the employer, makes. That is a fairly standard provision. However, if that man is sick while he is under notice the employer may not, as the law now stands, offset National Insurance benefit, and the result of this is that the man gets both the guaranteed payment from the employer under the Contracts of Employment Act and National Insurance benefit. Since the introduction of earnings-related benefits this means that a man can in certain cases get nearly twice as much as he would have done if he had not gone sick or nearly twice as much as his normal earnings—to be precise, in many cases about 185 per cent. of his normal earnings—or what he would have got if sick while not under statutory notice.
This is surely an anomaly. It was never the intention either of the Contracts of Employment Act or of the earnings-related benefits scheme that employees under notice should get more money than when working ordinarily—certainly not, as in certain cases, almost twice as much money as when working normally, or if away because of injury or sickness while in ordinary employment. The extra compensation which a man or woman can justifiably be said to deserve, and which this House admits he ought to have on being redundant, is applied through the Redundancy Payments Act. That is a problem for which Parliament has legislated, that the particular problem of compensation required by a man or woman made redundant should be met. It was never intended that on being given notice of redundancy a man or woman should benefit, when under notice, by getting, as I said, up to almost twice normal pay compared with that for his normal employment.
Moreover, not only is this a cleat anomaly but, unfortunately, there is some evidence to suggest that this anomaly may


have been leading to what I can only call substantial abuse in a number of cases in industry. We have been given well-documented cases where the running down or closure of a place of employment has taken place, because, unfortunately, this became necessary, in which in certain circumstances absenteeism, after the giving of notice, had risen dramatically to twice, and sometimes as much as three times, the normal incidence of absenteeism, and this very dramatic increase after the giving of notice—

Mrs. Orme: By absenteeism is the right hon. Gentleman talking of men genuinely providing doctors' notes? Or just absenteeism?

Mrs. Carr: No. people who, of course, have provided doctors' notes—

Mrs. Orme: That is not absenteeism, is it?

Mrs. Carr: This is, of course, as the House will know, indeed a very difficult subject. I am not making any specific charges. All I am saying is two things to the House. First of all, when we get circumstances where absenteeism rises suddenly to two and sometimes three times the normal incidence in a particular factory or a particular place of employment it is rather strange that this occurs. Let us assume for a moment that there is absolutely no element of abuse in it at all, there is still this anomaly. It was never the intention of either the Contracts of Employment Act or of the earnings-related scheme that the worker under notice should get substantially more than he got before he was under notice and when he was working or when away sick or injured. That was not the intention, because, I repeat, the intention of Parliament to give people under notice of redundancy compensation is expressed in the Redundancy Payments Act and that is how the extra help should be given.

8.15 p.m.

Mrs. Orme: There is a parallel I want to draw. Does the right hon. Gentleman recall that hon. Members behind him, particularly the right hon. Member for Kingston - upon - Thames (Mr. Boyd-Carpenter), consistently pressed that it was right for professional people who retired early to be able to sign and draw

unemployment benefit added to the pension which was given them—more earnings than they would get at the time they were professionally engaged—and that the Minister himself defended this practice when he was shadow Minister and was on this side of the House and we on our side were attacking the Labour Government for trying to attempt to reduce it?

Mrs. Carr: I do not think that the hon. Member is being quite accurate or quite fair in the distinction. The other case, as, I think, both sides of the House recognised, was a matter of the basic right of entitlement to National Insurance benefits in return for a contribution record. That is an absolute principle, and there is nothing in this Lords Amendment which in any way attacks that right; there is nothing in this Lords Amendment which takes away the right of a worker, whether under notice or not under notice, to receive full National Insurance benefit to which he is entitled either for sickness or injury; there is absolutely nothing in this Lords Amendment which reduces or takes away from that right whatever.
What we are saying is that this is well accepted—it has been accepted by the unions in collective agreements with employers—that if there is a voluntary sick pay scheme, when a worker is away through sickness or injury he receives full pay while absent. What in effect happens is that the employer pays that worker enough money to make up his National Insurance benefit to the level of his normal pay. This is what we are saying should happen also when he is under notice. The anomaly as such at the moment is that when he is under notice, and only under notice, he gets much more—up to as much as twice his normal earnings. This was never the intention of the Contracts of Employment Act, nor was it the intention of the earnings-related scheme. Nor does this Lords Amendment in any way abrogate the right of any person to National Insurance benefit to which he is entitled.

Mrs. Heffer: Would the right hon. Gentleman not agree that such a worker is suffering from a double disability? In the first place he is under notice; in the second place he is off sick and he is not in a position to be able to look for employment during that period. Surely this


must weigh with the right hon. Gentleman?

Mr. Carr: What I have said to the hon. Gentleman and must repeat again is that anybody under notice is under this disability and that is why we have our Redundancy Payments Act, and it is the Redundancy Payments Act which provides the worker with financial compensation—or whatever word one likes to use—to take note of the unfortunate fact that he has become redundant. The purpose of the Contracts of Employment Act was to ensure a certain statutory minimum period—which, incidentally, will be generously increased under this Bill—in which he should be assured of full normal earnings for the period of notice.
That was what the Contracts of Employment Act set out to give, and this is what we are extending in the Bill, so that when the Bill is on the Statute Book the statutory minimum periods of notice relating to length of service will be much more generous than they are at the moment. Therefore, we have the double position of somebody declared redundant on guarantee pay for an extended period of time made greater by the Bill with full entitlement to his proper National Insurance benefits. It is not right or fair to others that he should by an anomaly get much more than his colleagues who may also be under notice, or than he would have got had he been similarly sick or injured but not under notice. The fact that he is under notice, and what this means to him, is provided for under the redundancy payments scheme.

Mr. Neil McBride: Is not the right hon. Gentleman devaluing the medical certificate issued by the doctor when he says that absenteeism rises alarmingly when men are under notice? If a man is under notice and becomes ill, should not he have that little extra on humanitarian grounds?

Mr. Carr: The little extra is provided. It is certainly needed, and the previous Government, to their credit, in 1965 dealt with this by the redundancy payments scheme. If we are not providing what is right to meet those circumstances, the way to deal with that, if it should ever be necessary, is by revising the redundancy payments scheme and not by allowing the continuation of the completely

unintended anomaly which I have just described.

Mr. Kenneth Lewis: I have recently heard of a worker employed by a small employer who, in the middle of a period of sickness, was given notice. The employer then refused a redundancy payment on the basis that the employee was not redundant but was no longer fit to do the job. I do not think this would happen with a normal employer, certainly not a large employer, but a small employer can get away with this, and I should be interested to know what is the answer.

Mr. Carr: One would need to know the exact details of the case but, as my hon. Friend undoubtedly knows, the man's entitlement to a redundancy payment under the Redundancy Payments Act would have to be tested by an industrial tribunal, but I do not believe that that is relevant to the point we are discussing now. If for any reason our redundancy payments scheme is not providing as it should for cases of this kind, the way to cope with it is systematically and comprehensively to change the redundancy payments arrangements, and not to do it by allowing it to happen by chance in an arbitrary and non-comprehensive manner through an unintended anomaly. That is the basis for the Amendment. There is no doubt that the present situation has created problems and is not working either fairly or effectively at the moment. Moreover, the problem could be aggravated as a result of the Bill extending the periods of statutory notice during which guarantee payment has to be made.
As I said a few moments ago, it should not be forgotten that the Amendment arises in the context of a general extension of statutory notice, which was provided by the Contracts of Employment Act and which we are now amending in a generous way to guarantee people minimum periods of notice, which should lengthen the period of service during which they are assured of their normal earnings. That is what the Contracts of Employment Act was intended to do and what the Amendment will do in a more generous manner than ever before.
The position of workers who are sick while not under notice is not changed in any way. I think that is clear, but to


avoid any misunderstanding, I wanted to state it categorically. The only people who will be worse off as a result of the Amendment are the few who, because of the anomaly in the present law which I have described, and in a chance and arbitrary manner, have a substantial financial benefit as a result of absence from work when under statutory notice. I do not believe this could be fair, and I am sure it was not the intention. If we are not providing properly for the problems of redudancy, the way to do it is not by the continuance of a chance, arbitrary anomaly of this kind. That is why I believe we were right to bring in this Amendment in another place, and I commend it to the House.

Mr Harold Walker: I rise briefly on one small point in the first half of the right hon. Gentleman's speech. I want to contrast the reality which he has found as a Minister with the flag-waving rhetoric of his hon. Friends—I exonerate him, but not his hon. Friend the Member for Warwick and Leamington (Mr. Dudley Smith)—who, before the Bill was introduced, made speeches throughout the country in which they guaranteed that every worker would be given a full statement of his terms and conditions of employment.

Mr. Dudley Smith: Mr. Dudley Smith indicated dissent—

Mrs. Walker: The hon. Gentleman shakes his head. If I do him an injustice, I readily apologise, but I recall that a number of his hon. Friends who take an interest in this subject made one of the great selling points of "Fair Deal at Work" that every worker would be provided with a full statement of his terms and conditions of employment. I am not criticising the right hon. Gentleman for not doing this in the Bill, but I am saying that the reality he has experienced now he should have urged upon his hon. Friends before they went round the country making those speeches which were based either on illusion or on an absence of understanding of the difficulties which confront any employer who tries to do this. My right hon. Friend and I 18 months ago, with our Bill in mind, were anxious to do this but found ourselves up against precisely the same difficulty.
I do not want to pursue that point now, but to concentrate my remarks on the contemptible change that is wrought in the Contracts of Employment Act by Amendment No. 301. I remind the right hon. Gentleman that no mention of this proposal was made in "Fair Deal at Work". There was no mention of it in the Report of the Royal Commission, on which allegedly the Bill is based.

Mr. R. Carr: Mr. R. Carr indicated dissent.

Mr. Walker: I am glad that the right hon. Gentleman shakes his head, because his right hon. and learned Friend spent an afternoon addressing a distinguished company and telling them that the Bill was based on the Royal Commission.

Mr. Carr: Mr. Carr rose——

8.30 p.m.

Mr. Walker: I will give way in a moment. I think we have put the boot in on that one, so that the whole of our proceedings should not be discredited by that piece of nonsense. There was no mention of this in my right hon. Friend's Bill. Surely we would have had this drawn to our attention when we were drafting our Bill, but I have no recollection of this problem during our period of office. Nor was this in the Consultative Document. This was sprung on us surreptitiously in another place.

Mr. Carr: The hon. Gentleman is usually a very fair debater, and I am sure that he will accept that all we have ever claimed is that we agree with the analysis of the Donovan Commission, and that many of the proposals in our Bill are the same as those in the Donovan Commission Report or closely allied with them. That is the extent of the claim we have made.

Mr. Walker: One would have to scour the Bill and the Royal Commission Report very hard to find any analogies of substance. This is something on which the right hon. Gentleman has now reached the confessional. He explicitly denies what was said by his right hon. and learned Friend before the Bill was presented to the House. If he does not agree, I can get from the Library a copy of his right hon. and learned Friend's speech and the Press reports thereon, in which he claimed that the Bill was based on Royal Commission recommendations.
The right hon. Gentleman says that this proposal was never contemplated or intended when the Contracts of Employment Act was passed, and indeed when the Redundancy Payments Act was put through. I remember quite clearly the proceedings on the Redundancy Payments Act, and it is wrong to suggest that had there been an awareness of this matter it would have then been taken into account. I do not know whether that is what the right hon. Gentleman is suggesting. My recollection is that it was not introduced with the intenion of dealing with the situation which is envisaged in these provisions since such a situation is separate and distinct. Redundancy payments and entitlements cannot be linked to a worker's sickness during periods of notice.
If I may deal with Amendment No. 301, it is reprehensible that the Bill, which has earned the reputation of being one of the most odious pieces of legislation to be passed through Parliament, should be used as a vehicle to attack the terms and conditions of employment of millions of workers. Workers will be exposed to such an attack when they are suffering from one of the most grievous pieces of misfortune which can befall a worker, namely, the loss of his job.
It may be true that the loss of a job today is different from such a disaster in the 1930s. It is not such an appalling hardship because it is cushioned by redundancy payments, wage-related earnings benefits and the generally high level of social security benefits. However, the loss of a man's livelihood is still one of the most serious misfortunes that can befall a man in the whole of his working life. This puts hardship not only on the individual, but on his family. Therefore, to use this Bill as a vehicle to attack a worker in this situation is not only mean and despicable, but is a prostitution of the proceedings of Parliament.

Mr. Carr: The hon. Gentleman should recognise that the Bill substantially increases the minimum statutory guarantee period in relation to pay which a man or woman should be able to have under the terrible circumstances which he has been describing. There can be no doubt that this Bill will greatly improve the lot of people.

Mr. Walker: The Bill has been exposed throughout the proceedings in this House as a shabby, nasty, vicious attack on workers' rights and on freely negotiated terms and conditions of employment. This is yet another attack and I intend to expose it as such.
The right hon. Gentleman made a comparison with the original provisions as drafted in regard to paragraph 8 of Schedule 2. I hope that he did not intend to imply that we have accepted, even tacitly, the provisions of paragraph 8. We had intended to protest vigorously at the provisions of paragraph 8 in Schedule 2, and it was only the steam-rollering tactics of the Government in the form of their Guillotine which prevented us from so doing. Thus is democracy trampled underfoot by the guardians of Parliament who sit on the Government Front Bench. Had it not been for the wisdom and understanding of Mr. Speaker, who permitted the linking of this Amendment with earlier Amendments, the odds are that we would never have debated this matter at all in this House.
I said that we objected to the provision as originally drafted in the Bill. I pointed out in an intervention that, according to the way we read it—the right hon. Gentleman's words seemed to confirm this—the Amendment extends the scope of what is embodied in paragraph 8 as originally drafted. The Amendment heaps injury upon injury. The right hon. Gentleman put in general terms what he saw as the effect of the Amendment.
My noble Friend, Lord Hoy, in another place spelt out the effects of the Amendment in some detail. I am anxious not to waste time, but I think that it will be for the benefit of the House if we consider how the provision will apply in a typical example. I take that used by my noble Friend, Lord Hoy. My noble Friend considered the position of a man who is earning on average £25 a week and whose employer provides the kind of supplement to social security benefit to which the right hon. Gentleman has referred. Under the law as it stands, if that individual fell sick during a period of notice he would be entitled to £40: under the Contracts of Employment Act he would be guaranteed during the period of notice his normal average weekly earnings of £25 and he would receive on top of that—let us take a man


with three children—£15 a week, bringing him up to £40 a week.
In the ordinary way, if the man were not under notice, the employer would be required to bring up the £15 to £25 during sickness. However, when the man is under notice he is guaranteed the £25, so that, with the £25 "sickness benefit", would make £50. The employer is entitled, under the Contracts of Employment Act, to offset the £10 he would normally have added to the State benefit, thus reducing the £50 to £40. That is the present position.
Under the provisions as drafted in Amendment No. 301, the employer would be entitled to set off against the £25 guaranteed minimum wage the whole of the £25—not merely the £10 that the employer would have added to the supplement, but also the £15 that the man would receive from the State; so at a stroke he has reduced the man's £50 to £25.
The right hon. Gentleman said that the intention was to eliminate the anomaly whereby one man, because he was in such a scheme, might receive more than his fellow worker who was not in a scheme, thus establishing equity between the two. Having shown how in the hypothetical case I have taken the man's earnings that week would be reduced from £50 to £25, we axe now entitled to look at the position of his fellow worker, with whom parity is being established and who works in an establishment where the employer does not provide a supplement to the State sickness benefit. If such a person fell sick during his period of notice, he would be entitled under the provisions of the Contracts of Employment Act to £25 plus the £15 State benefit, making £40 in all. Before the introduction of this Amendment, when a man with average earnings of £25 was sick during a period of notice, he received £15 in State benefit. In other words, £40 on the one hand, and £40 on the other. We now see a curious method of putting them on the same level. The Government propose to chop the first man to £25, leaving the other at £40.
It is the kind of language used by the right hon. Gentleman which causes us anxiety. According to the logic of his case, the Government will now draw attention to the new anomaly which has been created, and, presumably, seek to

establish parity between person A and person B by chopping person B to £25. Is that to be the next stage?
This change was introduced not in this House but in the other place. It was done almost surreptitiously at 12.30 a.m. when their Lordships were led to understand that it was introduced at the request of the employers. We are entitled to ask who they are and what consultation took place with the trade unions. However, we need have no doubt at all. Major employers employing scores of thousands of work people stand to receive a massive pay-off. They are the same employers who invested heavily in the return of a Tory Government last June. They are getting their pay-off.
It is important to note that it is only the employers who are the beneficiaries of this proposal. There is no saving to State funds. The State's liability to pay sickness benefit is undiminished. It is the terms and conditions of employment, freely negotiated, which will be upset by this change.
The sickness schemes operated by employers are schemes which have been negotiated through the machinery of collective bargaining. If there were a need to introduce this change, if there were the abuses and anomalies to which the right hon. Gentleman has referred, why did not the employers do the job themselves and renegotiate their schemes? Surely it was open to them to do so? They could have sat round a table with their workers' representatives with whom originally they negotiated their schemes and told them that different State benefits required a different approach and that their schemes should be renegotiated. Instead, the right hon. Gentleman is doing their dirty work. Perhaps they are not sufficiently brass-faced but believe that the right hon. Gentleman is.
Whatever verbal allegiance the Government have expressed to the principles of free collective bargaining, and for all their words about the sanctity of contract, it is clear that this proposal is a hollow sham. Not only are the Government disrupting freely negotiated contracts; arbitrarily, they have worsened the terms and conditions of many workers at a stroke.
We have heard a great deal about abuse. If there is abuse, it is open to employers to renegotiate with the parties


with whom originally they agreed the scheme which is said to be being abused. I shall not attempt to disprove what the Government say, but I challenge the Government to prove it. So far, we have had no proof. We hear allegations of abuses of social security benefit, but we have precious little proof.
In any event, if there are some abuses, why should the innocent suffer? Many people genuinely fall sick during periods of notice. The Government ask why a sick man should qualify for more pay during a period of notice than when he is normally at work. My hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool, Walton (Mr. Heffer) dealt with that. The man is suffering a double injury. Apart from the loss of his livelihood, he is suffering from sickness and, in addition to any suffering, discomfort or inconvenience that it causes, it impairs his ability to seek new work. This is a problem which the Redundancy Payments Act was never intended to meet. What is more, we ought to bear in mind that, usually, payment of sickness benefit is inseparable from the production of a medical certificate. Are the Government seriously calling into question the integrity of the general practitioners who issue the medical certificates?
8.45 p.m.
The right hon. Gentleman referred to absenteeism. I understand from the report in the other place that it was specifically absenteeism in the coal mining industry which had been brought to the attention of their Lordships. I wonder what knowledge of the coal mining industry resides with those who sympathise with such arguments. On this point about people receiving a double benefit and enhancing their income by being absent from work, with respect to some of my hon. Friends, we all know those who are absent from this House so often doubling, trebling and multiplying their incomes by their absence. We do not hear about that. Apparently that is in order.
I return to the position in the coal mining industry. My constituency is in the heart of the South Yorkshire coal mining industry. I have many miners among my constituents. Every coal mining Member can confirm that there are thousands of miners in this country who daily struggle to work when they

should be in their beds. They cough and spit all the way to the pithead. Many of them should not be at work, but they cannot afford to stay away. Therefore, who can blame them if, the chopper having fallen, having been told that they are no longer wanted at the pithead, they decide to stay at home? Indeed, they ought not to be at home. As a matter of social responsibility, we should provide and send them to places to be cured of the ailments which they have contracted in this terrible industry.
It was said in the other place that such absences created difficulty for employers to readjust work schedules, and so on. There may be something in that. I have had my share of industrial management so I can appreciate the problems which arise, but that is hardly convincing as a justification of the step which is now proposed. After all, we are talking about people who have been told that their services are no longer required. Having been told that, their absence from work is then condemned because they are disrupting production.
You cannot have it both ways. I beg your pardon, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I should not dream of suggesting that you cannot have it both ways. The employers cannot have it both ways. They cannot say, "Mr. Jones, you are redundant to requirements. We do not need you. You are surplus to requirements. But do not stop off next week because we need you to maintain production." It is an insult. It seems an extraordinary equation to put on a par the loss of a man's job and the marginal effect—it cannot be more—of continuing the arrangements which the Government are wiping out.
It is also striking that the employer is given no alternative. The Bill does not give us the permissive "may" that we so often argue about. It is the mandatory "shall". The employer shall not exercise discretion, but shall set off the social security benefit against whatever payment a man might draw under the Contracts of Employment Act.
I should like to put a specific question to the right hon. Gentleman. What will be the position if a redundant worker, who might otherwise have benefited from the existence of such a scheme, decides at that moment to contract out of the scheme


unilaterally? The payment of the employer's supplement is normally dependent upon the employee who is off sick producing some documentary evidence about the amount of State benefit which he has received. I think that he gives that information on the form BS. 12 which he has to send in to his employer. It is only when he sends that information that the employer knows how much has been drawn and, in this situation, how much has to be offset against the amount of pay to which the man would otherwise be entitled under the provisions of the Contracts of Employment Act. Suppose he decides that the post will be late, or that he accidentally drops it into the fire or puts it to some other purpose and, therefore, does not send it. As I see it, it would be extremely difficult for the employer—indeed, an employee would have recourse to law—if he did not meet his obligations to the full under the Contracts of Employment Act. It would then be a matter for the employer subsequently to have to pursue repayment from the individual empoyee. If I am wrong, I hope that the right hon. Gentleman will correct me.
This is a matter of profound importance to the thousands of workers who will be affected, more particularly to the 740 workers in my constituency at Don-caster who are threatened with redundancy—indeed, they have been told that they are surplus to requirements—by their employer, I.C.I., which provides such a scheme. If I can offer them any useful advice to make sure that in the weeks ahead they get what they would have got had their redundancy occurred during the last few weeks, I shall be only too ready to do so. I hope that the Secretary of State will explain this.
The right hon. Gentleman claims that the Amendment will remove an anomaly. I hoped to show that far from removing an anomaly, it merely creates another and wider anomaly. In any event, for the right hon. Gentleman to try to remove an anomaly such as this by an injustice is reprehensible. I hope it is something that not only my hon. Friends but some of his hon. Friends will not accept.
Having embarked on this line and having breached what seems to us to be a principle, will the right hon. Gentleman guarantee that he will not, as one

of my hon. Friends suggested in an intervention, take it further? We hope that he will not. We hope that this will not be the start of a sweeping attack, not on double benefits, which are already prohibited by legislation, but on an individual who is in receipt of State benefit receiving a supplement from any other source. If it is such an attack, I beg the Government to think again. If they do not indicate readiness to think again, we shall oppose them in the Lobby, and I hope that one or two of the Minister's conscience-stricken hon. Friends will join us.

Mr. Tom King: The discussion has focussed largely on Lords Amendment No. 301, on which I wish to concentrate. I must confess to some surprise that we are discussing this Amendment. It seems somewhat foreign to the rest of the Bill. While not discussing the merits at this stage, we seem to have moved on to rather different ground.
My right hon. Friend made various points very fairly in his original presentation. The hon. Member for Doncaster (Mr. Harold Walker) has expressed concern, although I thought that a number of his charges were grossly excessive and detracted very much from the merits of what otherwise could have been a cogently argued case.
The suggestion that the Bill is an employers' pay-off cannot be justified on the facts. If the hon. Member had heard some of the comments which have been made to me about the problems that longer-term notice will raise for employers, and the problems of longer terms of notice affecting a relatively far wider number of people than merely those who are sick while under notice—

Mr. Harold Walker: I thank the hon. Member for allowing me to correct him. It was this Amendment to which I referred as the pay-off to the employer, and not the Bill. I recognise, as does the hon. Member, that it will create enormous problems for employers.

Mr. King: I recognise that the hon. Member always seeks to be fair and I knew that he would not want to make a charge like that unless he balanced the pros and cons.
My right hon. Friend has always recognised that the Bill is a matter of


balancing certain interests and issues and trying to effect a fair balance for the parties concerned. Therefore, the charge that this is a pay-off for employers must be immediately contradicted, because it simply cannot be justified on the facts.

Mr. Heffer: It is important to get this clearly on the record. The Prime Minister is reported as saying the other night, in the 1922 Committee, that it was not understood by his colleagues—meaning hon. Members opposite—how the balance would be tipped in favour of employers in industrial negotiations.

Mr. King: I hesitate to correct the hon. Member, because I have remarked recently about reports of private committees. What he says is not an accurate quotation. I suggest that his source must be corrected in this case, although in other cases I admit that we have had remarkably accurate quotations from private committee. The hon. Member's quotation is a distortion of what my right hon. Friend said.

Mr. Prescott: Tell us what he said.

Mr. King: The second point referred to by the hon. Member for Doncaster, which I thought far from fair, was his suggestion that there was something mandatory about the Amendment, in that it prevented any negotiation with employers for different terms. I know the hon. Member's great experience in these matters, and I was surprised that he should suggest that there was some compulsion on employers against doing anything better. That suggestion was totally valueless.
The hon. Member further laid great emphasis on the word "shall", as meaning that the employer had no alternative. There is nothing to prevent individual employers, by negotiations of the kind that hon. Members opposite recognise, making certain arrangements between a union and a company.
It seemed to me that the debate moved on to rather confused ground. The hon. Member for Swansea, East (Mr. McBride) touched on a valid point when he referred to doctors. The hon. Member for Sal-ford, West (Mr. Orme) suggested that it was an insinuation against doctors.

Mr. Orme: The implication was that doctors are corrupt, in the sense that

they are issuing certificates to which the persons who apply for them are no: entitled.

Mr. King: That is exactly the point. The hon. Member suggested that there was an attack on doctors. All those who know about these matters will realise that this is an extremely difficult problem for doctors. The situation is almost impossible for them. They are faced with the prospect of making a very difficult decision and in their situation it is understandable that we should arrive at the sort of results that my right hon. Friend has suggested that the figures show.
The hon. Member for Doncaster affirmed the point that there is something psychosomatic about receiving notice. It can have different effects on different people and it could well contribute to grounds for the issue of a doctor's certificate.
I am not clear what sized animal we have in our sights in the Amendment. Many of us would like some more information about the kind of monster that we are tackling, and would like to know whether it represents a major problem at this stage. I appreciate that the point made about the Redundancy Payments Act is valid and should be taken into account. I realise that we must deal with these anomalies. Although individually they seem small they contribute to a very unsatisfactory situation if they are allowed to continue.
Nevertheless, I am concerned about the situation of the people with whom we are dealing tonight, albeit that it is difficult to establish the validity of all their claims. I should like some more details as to how major a class this is. At the same time, one must recognise—this I support, and I appreciate the real problem which it will pose for many employers—that in this Bill we are taking far wider steps, steps not adequately acknowledged by the Opposition, to do more for those under notice by this important provision regarding extended periods.

Mr. Frederick Lee: The main problem here is that the Government are not dealing with payments made under a Government scheme. These are private payments, payments as between


employer and employee, and, as I understand it, the way the Government are going about it amounts to nothing less than a subsidy to the private employer. We are looking not so much at State benefits as at benefits derived from a private scheme which is an arrangement between an employer and his employee.
These schemes vary widely. Some of them are of a contributory basis and, as such, they amount to insurance which an employee takes out. When a person has, during his employment, insured himself against sickness, how dare any Government now intervene and say that he has no right to draw, or cannot be permitted to draw, benefits from a scheme to which he has contributed? Yet, as I see it, that is exactly what the Government are doing.
We all know that a small minority of people may well indulge in certain abuses, but it is too easy for people to whip up hysteria about that on the basis that the taxpayer has to pay for it. There is no suggestion of that here. In very many cases, a person who has contributed towards something is demanding benefits when he needs them.
We are invited to take into account the person who is on notice. What is the maximum period for which notice would run? I do not know. This should be made abundantly clear. I have had certain responsibilities in these matters, and I know very well that one of the problems which one comes up against is that it would probably cost more to stop an anomaly-than one would gain from stopping it. What kind of machinery would be necessary in order to stop what kind of payment? I shall take a lot of convincing that the anomaly of the man on notice is very widespread. I agree with what was said by the hon. Member for Bridgwater (Mr. Tom King) on this point; I should like far more information about the equation. For instance, how much would it take to prevent anomalies of this sort, as compared with what would be the benefit accruing from so doing?
We are running into something here which I defy any Government to be able to see through. For example, are we talking about a person on a payment-by-results scheme? We hear talk of employers making up the difference between the insurance and what the man

generally earns. But there is a huge range of differences. Is the person concerned on a flat basic rate, or is he on a payment by results scheme? I could cite the cases of hundreds of thousands of people whose take-home pay varies by as much as £10 a week. To what point does the typical employer make up the absentee's pay? Generally speaking, it is up to his basic rate.
9.0 p.m.
To say, as the right hon. Gentleman did, that people in that category would be taking home 85 per cent. more than if they were working is nonsense. I know a little about being off work sick and receiving basic pay. I can think of a number of industries where low basics are accepted only because there is adequate opportunity to make pretty big bonus earnings. In that sense, therefore, no employer is compensating a worker who is absent ill to the extent of the man's take-home pay if he were not ill. It is wrong to argue that 80 per cent. more can be taken home.
I believe that more than half the working population are on payment-by-results schemes. The miners have been mentioned, and many of them are on such schemes. I defy any Minister or organisation to make a computation which could result in their being able to tell us the percentage in excess of his take-home pay that the employee now on notice would be taking home.
It seems to me that the Amendment was a last-minute effort. Probably there was an inducement by some employers to get the Government to stick this kind of thing in. The Bill itself is anomalous; it is in very bad odour to begin with. Therefore, the argument may have been, "It cannot stink much more if we stick some of this in. We may as well get the thing through in this way," I object to using this kind of legislation, primarily because it is purely a subsidy to employers anyway.

Mr. Norman Atkinson: The Government are hired by the employers.

Mrs. Lee: I do not disagree. Perhaps I was being more polite than my hon. Friend. I was saying that the Amendment was stuck in at the last minute in another place because of an approach to the


Government by certain types of employers. This kind of legislation, bad as it is, should not be used to affect benefit arrangements between employer and employee.
The Tory Party has always argued that we should rely more on private schemes instead of widening the scope of the National Insurance schemes, as we aimed to do. We begin to see now why hon. Members opposite say that. The unholy alliance between employers and the Tory Party is becoming more and more obvious. If working people are to be forced to depend upon private schemes, which can then be manipulated in this way by a Tory Government, I am certain that we were absolutely right to try to take it out of the realm of private employers to influence the position of working people, especially at a time when a man is on notice and when, with 800,000-odd people out of work, heaven only knows when he will obtain further employment anyway. To introduce such an Amendment at a time when the Government are responsible for the horribly high rate of employment is too fantastic for words, and we shall oppose it.

Mr. Kenneth Lewis: I have seldom heard more excited exaggeration on anything than I heard from the hon. Member for Doncaster (Mr. Harold Walker). I thought that he was trying to make a case against the Government which he knew to be very thin. Not even the Opposition can afford to get into the position of supporting an anomaly, which gives advantage to a few people over many other employees and leads the others to say, "Seeing this going on, we had better get on the bandwagon as well." When there is an anomaly of this kind, the Government have a right to deal with it. Perhaps it would have been better to have done so in another Bill, but this Bill is as suitable a vehicle as any.
I do not believe that an employer should sack anyone who is sick. At least, it would have to be exceptional. If someone is off sick for a very long time, then the employer must think in terms that he cannot really keep the man on for an extended length of time. But in normal circumstances, when a man is sick he should not be dismissed. It does sometimes happen, however, which is why I raised with my right hon. Friend the

question of redundancy payments. I had heard that there was sometimes cases where a man was dismissed but did not get redundancy payment. In such cases, the employer does not usually have a sickness scheme.
I am all in favour of employers extending their own sickness schemes and of unions negotiating with them for such schemes. If one can put forward sickness schemes which do not contain anomalies, one is more likely to get the employers to negotiate them, but if one allows anomalies to persist that are to their disadvantage, they will think twice before they introduce sickness schemes or expand the scope.

Mr. Harold Walker: If it is the case that there are abuses, or, because of the passage of time and changes of circumstance and condition, the original conception of a scheme becomes irrelevant or outdated, surely it is open in the first instance to the parties who negotiated it and accepted it as part of the terms and conditions of employment, to renegotiate. We have had no evidence from the Government that any of the employers seeking this change have sought to renegotiate. It is part of my case that they have asked the Government to impose it instead of resorting to the machinery of free collective bargains, which has been so lauded on both sides of the House.

Mr. Lewis: It is difficult to answer that but my reply would be that employers and unions together may have sensed that there is some form of abuse of a scheme but that the employers may have taken the view that it would be very difficult to get the unions at official level to accept that there was an abuse.

Mr. R. Carr: The hon. Member for Doncaster (Mr. Harold Walker) is wrong in thinking that collective bargaining can come into this at all. The employer must do what he is now doing. He cannot alter it by collective bargaining.

Mr. Harold Walker: Do I understand—

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Robert Grant-Ferris): Order. It is best not to have an intervention upon an intervention.

Mr. Lewis: We will leave that as it is, since my right hon. Friend says that it is not negotiable.
There are people who are under notice who are perfectly fit and well, so they are not involved. Others who are sick are not under notice. People who are sick and not under notice are not affected. Clearly, they do not come within this regulation. The only people affected are those who are sick and are under notice and most of those—this is what clearly concerns the employers, I would guess—are men who have gone sick after they have been given notice. It is idle to pretend that this cannot and does not happen. It must clearly be disruptive if a group of people who are under notice—and extended notice is rightly becoming general in industry—suddenly decide to go sick, having discovered that they are so much better off if they do, for instead of being without them a month from today, the employer would be without them tomorrow. Hon. Members opposite say that if they can get advantage from so doing, there is no reason for them not to do so, but if the practice became extensive the disadvantage would be to the bulk of the workers and the advantage entirely to the minority.
9.15 p.m.
In the long run, it is to the advantage of employers to provide their own good sickness benefits. Hon Members say that these should be negotiated with the trade unions, that it would make negotiations to improve sickness schemes so much more difficult. It is an anomaly which they exaggerate, because it applies to a few people who have been fly enough to sense that they can get advantage from the arrangement.
It is said that we are casting aspersions on doctors by suggesting that their certificates are not always valid. But the situation in the National Health Service is such that if someone says that he is sick, at least in the short term, the doctor, busy as he is, will give him a certificate. That is proven by the fact that where there is a factory doctor, it is much more difficult to get a certificate than in factories which do not have their own medical service, and very few factories have their own service.
Opposition Members are exaggerating the difficulty. Furthermore, they are encouraging those who would take advantage of a loophole and in general they are doing a disservice to workers

who want to do what is right and not to get twice what they should have. Hon. Members want a better sickness benefit and they should be asking for an improvement in sickness benefits and not supporting the continuation of an anomaly which the Government are justified in tackling.

Mr. Dennis Skinner: The hon. Member for Rutland and Stamford (Mr. Kenneth Lewis) spoke of abuses and the way in which someone can see his doctor, say that he has a pain in his back, is 64 years and eleven months old, and be willy nilly given a medical certificate. It is not like that and it never has been. The procedure has been significantly tightened up in the last ten years and there are several ways in which to demon-state that. Hon. Members may try it out themselves for a start. A doctor, if he believes a man is swinging the lead—and this was referred to in another place—may not wish to give a certificate and can insert in a box at the bottom of the certificate "R.M.O." What he is saying to the insurance officer is, "Do not pay this man any money; I want him sent to the regional medical officer."
I can assure the hon. Gentleman that on many occasions doctors in my area, and in other parts of the country, do that. It does not end there. There are such things as sick visitors, often people with no medical experience, coming from the Ministry of Social Security visiting patients. Lord Robens referred to some of these when he made his representations to the Ministry.
Nor does it end there, because when the sick visitor has made a decision one way or another the insurance officer has the opportunity of deciding whether to allow the claim to go forward. So there is the regional medical officer, the sick visitor and the doctor with the opportunity in the first place to refuse the certificate or secondly to give one but to refer him to the regional medical officer. These are the hurdles over which a man must jump to get this benefit. Let us get that out of the way.

Mr. Kenneth Lewis: The hon. Member knows perfectly well that in most cases the doctor does not reach the R.M.O. stage until the person has been sick for a week or two and he wants him to so


back to work. If the man refuses and the doctor thinks that he ought to return, that is when the stage is reached.

Mr. Skinner: I dealt with these cases for 12 to 15 years before I came here and I can assure the hon. Gentleman that if a doctor decides to refer a man to the regional medical officer that is what happens once he has inserted "R.M.O.". It does not depend on that. There are many other ways in which he can act. There are random samples taken by the regional medical officer, quite irrespective of whether a man has been off work at any time during his working career. A man can be sent to the regional medical officer despite the fact that for 30 years previously he has never been off work, sick or injured. The hon. Gentleman ought to study the regulations before he comes here talking such tommy-rot.
I want to refer to a remark made by my right hon. Friend the Member for Newton (Mr. Frederick Lee) who said that this provision had been inserted at the last moment. I do not agree. I think that the Government have been waiting to insert this somewhere. I take the view that it would have gone into the original Bill had it not been for the fact that members of the Tory Party had to sell it to the country—had to speak on platforms selling the Bill. They did not succeed to a great extent, but they could not afford to have this part in the Bill at the outset.
The reason why I say this is that when the Contracts of Employment Act, 1963 was introduced it was an election gimmick. We were approaching an election and the then Government under Harold Macmillan were blown off course. The Contracts of Employment Act was built up with a big ballyhoo and given to the workers as a sop after four years of savage attacks. That is why the Act was introduced and that is why no reference was made to the man who had to be off sick or injured during his period of notice. That is why after the first 12, 13, 14 months the Government are taking this opportunity to put the record straight. This points to the fact that we are in a post-election period instead of a pre-election period.
I have said enough to show that this is not an afterthought. It is a deliberate act of policy. This provision would have

been inserted in the Social Security Bill but for the fact that the Government knew that they could introduce it at a later stage. So they brought it in shortly after midnight in the House of Lords when few peers were about and when the only exchange that took place on the subject was between Lord Drumalbyn—that is an unusual title, if ever I heard one [Laughter.]—and Jack Diamond—[HON. MEMBERS: "Order."] I apologise, I should say Lord Diamond, who inquired about the cost.
I did not have the honour to be an hon. Member when Jack Diamond, as he then was, was in this place, but I am told that he was very keen on inquiring into the cost of everything. That was his preoccupation when he was here. He is doing the same in the House of Lords.
Lord Hoy attempted to put the record straight, but little was said until, fortunately, the matter came back here. Earl Jellicoe—I prefer to call him "Earl" rather than anything else—said in the other place that this proposal had not come forward previously because of representations from the National Coal Board.

Mr. Orme: Why was nothing about that said today?

Mr. Skinner: I agree with my hon. Friend. The Minister made no reference to the N.C.B., which at that time was headed by Lord Robens, who was negotiating for himself two pay packets worth £200 a week each. Representations were submitted to the Ministry and Earl Jellicoe made it clear that it is as a direct result of those representations that this Amendment must be made.
I speak as an ex-miner, not only for myself and those I represent but for a more militant hon. Member who is not in his place but who has played a great part in dealing with this Bill, both here and in another place. I refer, of course, to my hon. Friend the Member for Mansfield (Mr. Concannon), who is suffering from glandular fever. He is a far more militant ex-miners' representative than I am and he has asked me to make these representations on his behalf, mainly because of the furore that this proposal has caused in the mining industry; and hon. Members will be aware


that my hon. Friend represents many thousands of miners.
Earl Jellicoe referred to absenteeism being at the rate of 50 per cent., particularly during periods of notice. I have done some arithmetic, and my arithmetic is about as good as my knowledge of most other subjects. Be that as it may, if one takes the figure of 40,000 miners who retired or were made redundant last year, and estimates that 50 per cent. of them were taking part in this exercise, then, being conservative and allowing not £80 but £90 in each case—the sum which they could draw, according to Earl Jellicoe—we are talking in terms of £1 million. In other words, it is being said that of 300,000 miners, not 40,000—let us, to be conservative, halve the figure—but 20,000 are taking £1 million out of these funds.
Whether or not Lawrence Daly reads the OFFICIAL REPORT of my remarks, they will be drawn to his attention. Next time he is discussing finance with Mr. Ezra, I urge him to ask whether it is all right for the miners to be getting an extra £1 million from the Exchequer? Some might think that if they are not able to get it by one means they should be entitled to get it by another. I have no doubt that Mr. Daly, Secretary of the N.U.M., will be confronting Mr. Ezra over this matter.
9.30 p.m.
This is more serious than some of my hon. and right hon. Friends would suggest. It is very serious indeed, because the very first victims of this Bill, which, my hon. Friend the Member for Salford, West (Mr. Orme) tells me, will get the Royal Assent on Wednesday night—and this man is wise beyond all belief about this—will be the very people whom we discussed at great length in this House this afternoon between 3.30 and 6.30—the men on the Clyde. Those are the people who will get hammered because of the Bill—and it is rather ironical, perhaps more than ironical, that Lord Robens had a hand in that as well.
We cannot expect hon. Members opposite to support us in the Lobby on this issue because this Bill is part of the Tory class strategy enunciated ever since the Tory Party resumed office on 18th June last year, but I want to refer to some

comments made when what was then the Contracts of Employment Bill of 1963 was going through the House. Having listened to the Secretary of State today about this matter being an anomaly and discovered at the last minute, it is rather remarkable to find that, when that Bill was being debated in Committee, this matter was discovered then by the then Member for Aylesbury—a Tory of course—and he moves Amendments about it and he was replied to by the then Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Labour, none other than the present Leader of the House, who replied to his hon. Friend:
These Amendments would remove the present safeguards in paragraphs 2 and 3 of Schedule 2 for the employee absent from work during notice because of sickness and leave, and would put nothing in their place."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, Standing Committee D, 14th March, 1963; c. 196.]
In 1963, prior to a General Election, these were safeguards. In 1971, 12 months after a Tory General Election victory, they have become regarded as an abuse. Day after day we read in the newspapers of hon. Members opposite attacking the integrity of my hon. and right hon. Friends, and yet we have this illustration of the present Government, who once said that employees must get their sickness pay and minimum notice and guaranteed payments, but now say that all that should be abolished.

Mr. Loughlin: I cannot possibly hope to emulate my hon. Friend the Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner) and his speech, but I hope to pose one or two questions which I think ought to be posed, very plainly and very simply to the right hon. Gentleman.
We have listened to two hon. Gentlemen opposite, one the hon. Member for Bridgwater (Mr. Tom King), who has made his speech and gone, and the other the hon. Member for Rutland and Stamford (Mr. Kenneth Lewis) who, by coincidence, has made his speech and gone, and I am rather sorry that they have gone. Does the right hon. Gentleman wish to intervene?

Mr. R. Carr: If the hon. Gentleman wishes. I was just thinking, of all hon. Members who have sat fairly steadily throughout our debates on this Bill, I should have thought that the hon. Gentleman ought not to have made criticism of


my hon. Friend the Member for Bridgwater (Mr. Tom King).

Mr. Loughlin: I am glad to see that the right hon. Gentleman is defending his hon. Friend. The hon. Member for Bridgwater said that he could not understand why this issue was included in the Bill as it is completely foreign to the rest of the Bill. I, too, wonder why it is in. Sickness and industrial injury benefits have nothing to do with the Industrial Relations Bill. I am led to suspect that there has been some behind-the-scenes manoeuvring, and that this provision is apparently an afterthought. Perhaps the right hon. Gentleman will tell us why and when it was thought desirable to introduce the provision.
It was suggested that there had been abuse, but the hon. Member for Rutland and Stamford, in defending the Government, far from talking about abuse, argued that the total number of people who would be affected by the provision was very small and that we were exaggerating the position. If the number is so small, why is the argument based upon abuse, and why must we bother about it at all?
Abuse of sickness benefits has been talked about for many years. When I was in the Department of Health and Social Security it was a cardinal principle that the patient/doctor relationship was sacrosanct. Any attack on a doctor alleging that he was enabling people to abuse the benefits by issuing a certificate when he should not have done was always refuted. The right hon. Gentleman should have a word with his right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Social Services. If his right hon. Friend is taking the line that medical practitioners in the health service are so incompetent, corrupt and frightened of their patients that they are issuing certificates which allow people to secure money on false pretences, that is a very serious charge. If a Minister of the Crown makes by implication a charge of that kind he should be prepared to substantiate it with the full facts.
Paragraph 3A(2) of Amendment No. 301 states:
If during any part of the period of notice the employee is incapable of work because of sickness or injury, and—

It may be argued that there may be abuse—I would not argue it myself—if a person who receives a notice goes to a doctor saying that he does not feel so good. But if the man is suffering from an industrial injury and it is argued that there is abuse, then it can be said that the man is abusing the situation.
To establish an industrial injury for an increase in industrial injuries benefit there must be a water-tight case. A man cannot establish a claim for industrial injuries unless there is clear evidence from the man involved, corroborated by his employer. If the case is not corroborated, the injury benefit is not allowed. Arguments which by a stretch of the imagination can be applied to sickness cannot be applied to an industrial injury case. Since such claims must be corroborated by an employer, there can be no question of abuse.
I should like the hon. Gentleman to reply to this question. A number of first-line supervisory personnel are likely to become redundant, in the same way as are chief executives in these days because this is happening throughout the whole spectrum of industry. Many of these supervisory personnel are engaged on what loosely are known as staff conditions. One of those staff conditions is that they get paid "work or play". I accept what the Secretary of State says that this is not mandatory and that there can still be negotiations on improvements. One tragedy of this situation will be that a number of employers will take advantage of these provisions and will take the maximum rather than the minimum.
Will the hon. Gentleman say whether employees engaged on nebulous staff conditions such as the "work or play" conditions I have described, will continue to be paid after this provision has been enacted? I am inclined to feel that this is something of a fiddle. It is a backdoor method of dealing with the situation.
The Government would be wise to think again about this. Neither they nor industrialists will find it easy to get cooperation from workpeople in the present industrial climate. Right hon. and hon. Members opposite cannot get it into their thick skulls that workpeople cannot be expected to increase productivity when all they are doing is working themselves and their mates out of jobs. The figure


of 800,000 unemployed will be increased this month, because a substantial number of the 150,000 youngsters who left school recently will not get a job for many months. In such a situation, it is the height of impudence for the Government to attempt to use such a back-door method of cutting benefits.

9.45 p.m.

Mr. David Stoddart: The more I have listened to and watched these debates the more convinced I have become that the bland countenance of the Secretary of State masks a vicious and class-biassed mind. The Amendment reveals it more than anything else and I am glad that the Amendment was exposed by my hon. Friend the Member for Don-caster (Mr. Harold Walker).
Like others, I cannot understand why this provision is introduced into this Bill. As the hon. Member for Bridgwater (Mr. Tom King) said, if it is to be introduced at all it should be part of another Bill. I cannot understand the haste in introducing it unless, as my hon. Friend the Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner) suggested, the Minister is under such great pressure from big business, whether in the form of nationalised industries or other big business, that he has become a mere lapdog.
Employers who have introduced sickness benefit schemes are being offered a reward for their previous benevolence. This may well be what the Minister has in mind. In truth, there is little benevolence on the part of most employers. These fringe benefits, as they are called, have been fought for by working people over a long period and many working people have sacrificed earnings to get this benefit and other fringe benefits. Because of this provision, they may well be penalised twice—first, through having accepted a lower wage for better fringe benefits and, now, if they are sick while under notice, because they will lose part of the money they would otherwise have had.
In view of all this, I hope that hon. Members opposite will ignore all the claptrap which has been talked about doctors' certificates. With a few notable exceptions who prefer playing golf to looking after their patients, members of the medical profession are very conscientious. They do not give medical certificates at the drop of a hat. Most of them will not countenance the lead swinger.
I hope sincerely that hon. Members in all parts of the House will reject the Amendment.

Mr. Orme: Some very important points have been made in this debate. A number of my hon. Friends have asked what this provision is doing in the Industrial Relations Bill, since it has nothing to do with the general lay-out of the Bill and deals with social security benefits relating to sickness and industrial injury. As one of the seven Opposition Members who served on the Committee which considered the Social Security Bill, I know why this provision was not in that Bill. There were enough benefits withdrawn from industrial workers in the Bill without the addition of this provision.
Following the withdrawal of the three waiting days for unemployment, sickness and industrial injury benefits, we now find that what is happening to industrial workers is topped by a Minister who says in this Bill that a worker who goes sick while he is under notice is getting a fantastic amount of money over and above his legal entitlement and that it must be stopped.
Earlier, the right hon. Gentleman spoke about redundancy and benefits. Then he alluded to doctors. He did not specifically refer to doctors until he was challenged. He started to talk about absenteeism, and said that there was a large increase. It was then that it was pointed out to him that he was discussing workers who were in receipt of medical certificates and, therefore, that he was directly accusing doctors of malpractice since it followed that they were issuing certificates for benefits.
The right hon. Gentleman persists in saying that this is normal and natural. However, as my hon. Friend the Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner) pointed out, one does not necessarily come by a medical certificate easily. It has been my experience in industry that doctors show a good deal of resistance. They are not prepared to give certificates. In a collective sense, doctors tend to be extremely conservative. They are not given to generosity. Many doctors examine patients who insist that they are entitled to benefit and refer them to the regional medical officer. If a doctor puts that on a certificate his patient has to see the regional medical officer. If that


happens, the patient has no redress. He cannot go back to his general practitioner.
We are entitled to know a little more about the basis of the right hon. Gentleman's case. He referred to a figure of 185 per cent. That means 85 per cent. in excess of a person's entitlement. We should be told on what figures the 185 per cent. is based. We are entitled to know how much abuse there has been over the last 12 months. How many thousands, hundreds of thousands or millions of pounds are involved? If the right hon. Gentleman is not prepared to give us those figures, then his case is based on supposition and on the case that the employers have made that they want something done about it.
Further, we are entitled to know the employers who have made representations. We know that the National Coal Board is one of them. We feel that we are entitled to know what the employers' case is based on. Where do they see the abuse?
I asked about professional people who, on retirement, drew unemployment benefit for perhaps two years. We had the classic case of the noble Lord Montgomery, and others, who claimed the benefit. We also had the case, often pleaded in this House by the right hon. Member for Kingston-upon-Thames (Mr. Boyd-Carpenter), of the retired bank manager and of many other people who, over a period of two years, legally applied for and obtained unemployment benefit. We were told that it was a statutory right.
Many sickness schemes have been negotiated on the basis of joint contributions by employer and employee. My hon. Friend the Member for Doncaster (Mr. Harold Walker) said that, in effect, it means a financial bonanza for the employer, leaving the employee purely on State benefit. It is no use the Conservative Party always saying that it is a pity that the trade unions do not negotiate more and better fringe benefits; that they ought to be using their energies to get better sickness pay, better redundancy pay, better holiday pay, and other such factors. As soon as these benefits are negotiated, right hon. and hon. Gentlemen opposite attack them by a reduction in the State benefits which run alongside them.
We are talking about workers who have been made redundant and who, during their redundancy term, go sick. It is a narrow point. They are entitled to four weeks' redundancy pay, although this is to be increased. So the Minister goes round the country and, in glowing terms, states: "We have increased the amount of redundancy notice; therefore, a worker is entitled to and will get this, that, and the other". But he does not say that he will reduce that by any benefit that a worker may have been lucky enough to have negotiated with his employer.
Many of the people who are made redundant and are genuinely sick face a most difficult time in their lives. Many of them are older people. Yet they are to be chased for a matter of a few pounds. We hear of the golden handshake and the thousands of pounds that certain people get from industry. They get it as a redundancy payment. Good luck to them if they can get it. My hon. Friends and I will not see a situation in which people can get that type of golden handshake, but thousands of industrial workers are penalised because they might get £1 or £2 when they are sick at the same time as they are redundant.

10.0 p.m.

Mrs. Skinner: My hon. Friend has referred to golden handshakes. I mentioned in my speech that at the very time when Lord Robens was making representations to the Department about the alleged abuse by the miner aged 64 years and 11 months who had served for 50 years in the industry, he was negotiating two pay packets for himself of £200 a week each. The point needs to be made that at the same time he was getting a golden handshake into the bargain.

Mr. Orme: My hon. Friend has put Lord Robens in perspective and has finally rounded it off.
A worker does not start to receive wage-related benefit until he has been off work through sickness or unemployment for 12 days. Will the first fortnight not take effect, or will it take effect only when the wage-related benefit starts? We are entitled to be told.
We have pulled out from under the stone another of the diabolical measures which the Government are writing into the Bill. We were told earlier that all


this was dealt with in the Schedule, but because of the guillotine we have never debated the Schedule. When the Bill went to the other place, this proposal was spelled out in full. It comes back to us as Lords Amendment No. 301. If, by negotiation with the Chair, we had not coupled that Amendment to Lords Amendment No. 46, it would not have been discussed now. Thousands of industrial workers would have been affected by this measure and it might have never been discussed in the House of Commons. It is a disgrace, and I hope that my hon. Friends will divide on Lords Amendment No. 46 to show their complete opposition to Lords Amendment No. 301, which obviously we shall not reach to be able to vote on it.

Mrs. Heffer: The debate has rightly concentrated on Lords Amendment No. 301. Before I comment on some of the issues raised by that Amendment, I should like to ask the Secretary of State to make certain that during his reply we are given more details of what will be the reasonable opportunities for workers as regards the notes that will be made available to them concerning the Contracts of Employment Act.
We need to have this spelled out because it is important to the worker to know how those reasonable opportunities will be granted—whether something will be displayed on the notice board or whether he must apply to his foreman or go to the local office or whatever it may be. It is of the utmost importance that workers should know this. We need to have it spelled out in detail.
The Government need to answer clearly the points which have been made during the debate. My hon. Friend the Member for Doncaster (Mr. Harold Walker) made an absolutely first-class speech—a speech that requires an answer. He raised many issues in respect of which the House and the country will want to know the Government's view in some detail.
The hon. Member for Bridgwater (Mr. Tom King) was right in saying that a foreign element has been injected into the Bill. The provisions in this part of the Bill should never have been inserted. They might have been introduced in a social security Bill, although we would

have preferred that they were never introduced at all. Certainly this Bill is not the one in which to introduce them. These provisions are totally irrelevant to the Bill. But they are not irrelevant to Tory Party philosophy and thinking.
My hon. Friend the Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner) was right in saying that this is part of the Tory class strategy. Hon. Members opposite may shake their heads, but I can tell them that the Government have done similar things in the past few months. In social security they have brought in a Bill abolishing the three waiting days, which means that millions of workers will be adversely affected. They have brought in a provision that workers on short time will not receive unemployment benefit for the first six days that they are on short time. [Interruption.] Apparently hon. Members opposite are not aware of what their Government are doing. The Government have reduced the benefits not to strikers but to the wives and families of strikers, and to workers thrown out of work as a result of strikes.

This Amendment is in line with the whole of Tory philosophy and thinking about workers and social security. It is right that my hon. Friend should refer to this as a despicable, vicious and mean Measure.

We have been told that all sorts of abuses have been practised. The hon. Member for Rutland and Stamford (Mr. Kenneth Lewis) was a little schizophrenic about it. He said that there were all sorts of abuses and that it was a growing problem, but a few seconds later he said that not many people were involved. It may be a case of tossing a penny to see what happens, but he cannot have it both ways. Either there is a great abuse, or not many people are involved.

The right hon. Gentleman referred to it as "a problem", but he gave no facts. He did not even go as far as his hon. Friends went in the other place. They, at least, argued that there was some abuse and put forward some points, but the right hon. Gentleman merely said, in passing, "There is abuse." He should let us know what abuse there is. He should let us have some figures. He should tell us how much money is involved, and what industries are involved. He should tell us how many workers have been involved.

My hon. Friend the Member for Bolsover answered the point made in respect of the mining industry. The mining industry has been referred to, and I should like to know what other industries are involved. It conjures up a vision of workers, immediately they are told they are redundant, dashing round to the nearest doctor and saying that they are ill in order to get this extra bit of money. Do hon. Members opposite really think that that is how workers act? They know that it is not true.

My hon. Friend the Member for Salford, West (Mr. Orme) asked the question which is inevitably raised by the Government's attitude: who are the doctors who give certificates in these circumstances? Apparently, when the worker rushes to the doctor's door, he is welcomed with open arms and immediately given a certificate. I do not know any such doctors. I see the hon. Member for Rutland and Stamford raises his eyebrows at that. If he knows that there are such doctors, it is his responsibility to do something about it. It should be dealt with in that way, with the doctor concerned.

I have a doctor friend in Liverpool, a member of my party, who has told me that when the occasional worker has come to him trying to swing the lead, he has never given him a certificate. I am sure that that is the position of most doctors in this country, and anyone who suggests otherwise does not understand the profession. [An HON. MEMBER: "It is a slander on the medical profession."] Yes, and although hon. Members opposite make that slander on the profession, they say at other times that we should give doctors the highest possible pay, and then, when we do not do that in certain circumstances, they complain. One cannot have it both ways.

Mrs. Tom King: That was a very unfair crack which came from one of the hon. Gentleman's hon. Friends, who. incidentally, was not here earlier. We have already dealt with that point, and it has been admitted by both sides, I think, that there is in no sense a slander on the medical profession here. It is merely a recognition of the difficult situation in which doctors are put in this sort of case.

Mrs. Heffer: If it is not a slander on the medical profession, I do not know what is it. But it is up to hon.

Members opposite, not us, to argue about that with the medical profession. [AN HON. MEMBER: "The doctors are accused of incompetence."] Are they saying that doctors are incompetent?

Mrs. Tom King: That is not true, either, and the hon. Gentleman who said that was not here earlier.

Mrs. Heffer: It is not up to us to answer that charge against the doctors. Hon. Members opposite must answer it, because it is they who have raised the question.
What about the amounts involved? We have not been given the numbers, but we have been told that there are some workers who, in certain circumstances, when they are declared redundant and they are to receive their guaranteed payments under the Act, go off sick so that they can have additional money. One would imagine that we were talking of thousands of £s. In fact, even if there were this terrible abuse, it amounts to only £10 or £15.
10.15 p.m.
We are not talking about vast sums of money, but we are talking about workers who are suffering a double disability. On the one hand, they have been told by their employers that they are now redundant; they are on statutory notice, and they go sick so that they are not in a position to seek other employment during that period. They have that double disability. Up to now, we have ensured proper treatment for such workers. When the Bill was first introduced, this question was raised by the hon. Member for Aylesbury at that time, and the reply was given from his own Front Bench. It was a safeguard for the worker.
It is not a safeguard to the worker now. It is apparently an abuse under those circumstances, but it was not an abuse then. Why is it an abuse now? The reason is that it is in line with the Government's policy of attacking the industrial worker at every possible level, whether under the Bill or the legislation on social security benefits, as part of their class attitude and philosophy.
Hon. Members opposite do not like this sort of argument; they do not like an argument which is realistic and true. They like to mask their statements behind an apparent benevolence that is not real.


When they are unmasked, as they are now and have been so often, they become very angry. We must also have an answer to the question asked by my hon. Friend the Member for Salford, West about wage-related benefits not being paid until after 12 days.
It has been made absolutely clear that the people who benefit are the employers and that one employer, a State employer, made representations to the Government. What other employers have made representations to them? When were the trade unions brought into discussions on the question? We know that the T.U.C. has rejected out of hand the proposals on the three waiting days and the short-term benefits, and they have been imposed on the trade union movement despite the T.U.C. 's opposition.
In his first-class speech, my hon. Friend the Member for Doncaster was right to say that when a worker loses his job it is a terrible blow to him and his family. It creates a great deal of distress in the family and is not to be accepted lightly, particularly when there are over 800,000 unemployed and there are growing numbers of unemployed in certain parts of the country, like Scotland. It is a devastating blow when a worker receives his notice from his employer, yet at that very moment there is to be a further imposition on him if he should become sick or suffer an industrial injury—it is a question of industrial injury as well as sickness. What happens, for example, if the worker receives a lump sum as a result of his industrial injury? Will that be taken out of his benefit?
Whenever the working people of this country make an advance, whenever they begin to live decently, whenever a Labour Government, or even a Conservative Government, introduce legislation which puts the worker in a rather better position and gives him greater security, the worker feels that much more secure. But the Government are taking that security away from him. They have decided that the workers have too much. The balance as the Prime Minister told the 1922 Committee—if the report were not accurate, he had better write to the Daily Telegraph about it—has been tipped against the trade unions in the interests of the em-

ployers. We are not prepared to go along with that and intend to vote against the Amendment.

Mr. R. Carr: By leave of the House, perhaps it would be helpful if I tried to reply to some of the points which have been made.
The hon. Member for Liverpool, Walton (Mr. Heffer) asked about the first group of Amendments dealing with the availability of the statement of change, about what is "reasonably accessible", and so forth. We intend that exactly the same conditions shall apply there as apply already when there are any changes, and as are set out in the well-known leaflet explaining the Contracts of Employment Act for the guidance of employers and employees. So far as we know, that has met the needs of and has satisfied the trade unions and others in the past, and we therefore see no reason why it should not do so in the future. I hope the hon. Gentleman will excuse me from reading out a great many paragraphs from the leaflet, but I assure him that that is what we are going to do with this new provision. It has been found satisfactory by trade unions and employees hitherto and I am sure that it will be satisfactory in future.

Amendment No. 301 has given rise to the major controversy in the debate. I have been asked why this provision should be in the Bill at all. I have been accused of introducing it surreptitiously in the early hours of the morning in another place. Tied in with this is the question of what views have been expressed by the trade unions about it.

The provision was not introduced surreptitiously in another place. The original paragraph 8 of Schedule 2, under the heading
Sickness or injury during period of notice

was in the original print of the Bill last December. We have made the Amendment not because our intention was changed or hidden but because it became clear that the original paragraph 8 did not achieve the intention. There was nothing surreptitious about it. It was not introduced in the middle of the night in another place. The proposal was already in the Bill. No representations were received from the unions about it after the first print of the Bill.

Mr. Frederick Lee: But if the paragraph did not achieve what the Government intended, why should the unions have supposed that this was the Government's intention?

Mr. Carr: There is no doubt that the intention was clear. I do not believe that the unions had a look at the intention and said, "Ha, ha. We can see that the Government have not been clever enough and are not going to achieve their intention, so we shall say nothing about it." It is conceivable but it is unlike the trade unions or any other bodies in the country which normally make representations to the Government about legislation. The proposal was clear in the Bill as drafted.
Why are we doing this in the Industrial Relations Bill? That is a fundamental question. We are doing it here for a reason small in terms of space but important in terms of events—we are amending the Contracts of Employment Act in order to make its provisions more generous to employees and workers in their terms and conditions of employment. We have not just brought in this "little thing" as a side issue. It is part and parcel of the change which we are making and it fits perfectly naturally into the Bill.
Why should the change be made? Why is what was right in 1963 not right in 1971? The reason is that conditions have changed enormously. In 1963, when the Contracts of Employment Act was introduced, national insurance sickness benefits were flat-rate benefits at about £2 a week and employers' sick pay schemes, where they existed, did not commonly provide for the offset of sickness benefit received from the National Insurance Fund, and in general they provided flat-rate sickness pay.
The situation has been changed by the scale of benefits and the fact that they are earnings related. The scale of the problem is now entirely different and it does not at all follow that what was right in 1963 is right in 1971.
Many hon. Members have spoken as though we were doing something to the national insurance benefits entitlements. We are doing nothing of the kind. What we are doing is amending the Contracts of Employment Act.

Mr. Skinner: It is the same thing.

Mr. Carr: It is not the same thing. We are not altering a worker's entitlement to his national insurance earnings-related benefits, or any other form of benefit.

Mr. Skinner: It is putting money in the employers' pockets.

Mr. Carr: That is not the case at all. The object of sickness pay schemes as voluntarily introduced by employers on their own initiative, or as a result of collective bargaining with their unions, is to ensure to workers their full normal earnings while they are away from work through sickness or injury. It is to make up full pay while they are away from work. We want to encourage not only employers who do that already, but employers who do not, to do so in future.
It is not much encouragement to employers who do this already, or employers who may and, we hope, will do so in future to say that when their workers happen to be sick or injured in these very special circumstances they should have to do much more than make up their full pay. It is surely reasonable that an employer agrees to make up to full pay. That is what he entered into and that, by the provisions in the 1963 Act, when conditions were entirely different, is what he ought to do. We think that it is wrong that the anomaly should exist in these cases.

Mr. Orme: By "full pay" does the right hon. Gentleman mean the basic rate, or total earnings when a worker has payment by results?

Mr. Carr: I was about to mention that. The Notes for Guidance on the contracts of Employment Act deal with this. Provision is made for people on piece work, for example. Speaking from memory, I think that it is the average of the previous four weeks' earnings. Where it is flat-rate pay in no way related to a production bonus, the flat rate is paid. When it is pay based largely on piece work of one kind or another, the guaranteed pay under the Contracts of Employment Act is, I think, the average of the previous four weeks' earnings.

10.30 p.m.

Mr. Skinner: Most of the people affected by this Amendment are those who have been in, say, the coal mining industry for 64 years 11 months and who, because closure has been pending for some time,


have been on a low rate of pay for a long time. The same thing applies most probably to the U.C.S. workers. Their rates of pay when the contracts of employment provision takes effect will be much less at that time than they have been over the last two or three years. That is the answer.

Mr. Carr: If there is something in what the hon. Gentleman says, it affects the whole situation, injury or not. All we are saying is that it does not seem right to us that because a man or woman falls sick at one time under one particular set of circumstances he or she should get what may be up to 185 per cent. of the normal pay which fellow workers get who do not fall sick. This does not normally happen and we do not believe that it is an anomaly which can be justified here. That is all that there is to it.

The question of abuse has been raised—whether this is an attack on the competence of doctors and so forth. This is a piece of chop logic. We all know the difficulties which doctors must face with large numbers of claims for certificates. We all know that on a first application doctors must give the benefit of the doubt to the applicant and we would wish them to do so. We would not wish to encourage doctors to do otherwise. We hear so often about this "pain in the back", and so on. How does a doctor measure pain in the back? It may be nothing and it may be acute. The doctor cannot tell. What is more, a pain of that kind might arise from some minor cause from which no harm would result from going on with normal work, or it could arise from a very serious cause. No doctor, faced with a claim of that sort, can just turn a man down and he certainly would not begin to query the case until there was some evidence which gave him positive reason to think that a man might be malingering.

I was asked what evidence we had about possible abuse or suggestions of abuse. As is well known, some evidence came from the National Coal Board. I could not help thinking, when I listened to some speeches from hon. Members opposite, that they found this a nice peg on which to hang an attack on the Board in general and Lord Robens in particular, who has not been their favourite man for a long time now.

Mr. Skinner: He has never been mine.

Mr. Carr: That, as some of my hon. Friends have suggested, is a mutual state of affairs. When hon. Members make this sort of attack on the Board they ought to remember the record of the Board in handling deployment and the difficult matter of pit closures—which some hon. Members never believed in but which successive Governments, including the Government formed by the Labour Party, believed were helpful and necessary. Before attacks of this kind are made on Lord Robens and his colleagues some account should be taken of their record and the way in which they tackled this difficult redevelopment problem.
That is not the only source of evidence. We have had representations from individual companies and from the C.B.I. It is also true to say that we have had some detailed evidence from the N.C.B., and I will mention some of it.
A survey was made of the closure of II collieries in the South Durham area. It showed that during the statutory notice period, absenteeism rose considerably. In four of the 11 cases, the rate of absenteeism rose by 50 per cent. or more above the previous level and in the other seven cases, the rate rose to between 30 per cent. and 40 per cent. of the labour force, which was far more than had been the rate right up to the moment of the redundancy notices being issued. They were absent—

Mr. Skinner: With medical certificates.

Mr. Carr: I am quoting details from a document—

Mr. Skinner: May I see the document?

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Robert Grant-Ferris): Order. The hon. Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner) knows that he must not keep making sedentary interventions. The Minister has shown his readiness to give way. The hon. Member must observe the rules of the House.

Mr. Skinner: Can the right hon. Gentleman say whether the survey from which he is quoting was in respect of voluntary or involuntary absenteeism? If not, he cannot prove his case.

Mr. Carr: I am simply saying that sickness pay cases—cases supported by


doctors' certificates—rose dramatically immediately after the notice period came into effect. The question whether some men may be getting more than some of the more conscientious ones is a point that must obviously be considered, but it is not the main point. The fact remains that when a large undertaking such as the N.C.B., faced with the very difficult and unpleasant task of having to close down a pit or factory, tries to do so with full consideration, with full notice, and with humanity, that task is made much more difficulty if there are abnormally high rates of absenteeism and sickness. The humane carrying out of a rundown operation is made more difficult to administer efficiently in that event, and I believe that the generosity of the N.C.B. and its humanity—

Mrs. Skinner: Generosity in sacking people?

Mrs. Carr: If hon. Gentlemen opposite will reflect carefully and calmly on what I am saying, they will see that there is something in it.

Mrs. Skinner: What is generous in sacking people?

Mr. Carr: The hon. Member for Bolsover asks whether it is generous to sack people. Of course it is not, but if an industry is being run down, whatever the reasons—and the Labour Government recognised that it was unavoidable; that mines had to be closed and that the scale of operations had to be reduced in terms of the number of pits—then, while sacking people cannot be regarded as an act of generosity, it should be done as well, as gradually, as humanely and as efficiently as possible, not just for the national economy but for the welfare of the people in the industry.

Mr. Harold Walker: The right hon. Gentleman has several times referred to people being away on doctors' certificates in terms of absenteeism. He will recall that in my remarks I acknowledged that abuse might exist and pointed out that in the coal mining industry more than in any other there may be, because of the hazards of working in the mines, thousands of men dragging themselves to work rather than putting their jobs at risk. However, these men, who should ordinarily be at home and probably in bed, feel, when redundancy notices are

issued, that they might as well give in and accept their illnesses rather than drag themselves to work.

Mr. Carr: I apologise if I am using "absenteeism" wrongly. The whole debate is taking place in the context of the offsets of sickness and injury benefits, and I am talking in that context. The hon. Member must remember that all we are proposing by this Amendment is that these people shall continue to go on drawing their full pay. At the moment some of them are drawing very much more than their full pay, and this is an anomaly which is not calculated to encourage the development of good voluntary sick pay schemes in industry. It is not what these employers contracted with the trade unions to do when they made these agreements.
The employers were saying—and surely we should honour them for this and encourage them to do so—that they would enter into a scheme whereby they would make payments to their employees to bring their pay during sickness or injury up to full pay. They did not contemplate payments to bring the weekly income of their employees up to much more than full pay. That never was their intention, and I do not believe that any hon. Member ever thought it was. This anomaly has been discovered, we believe it is right to remove it, and that is the end-all and be-all of it.

Mr. Heffer: My right hon. Friend the Member for Newton (Mr. Frederick Lee) pointed out that many workers earn well above the basic rate, but pay was usually made up to the basic rate. Will the right hon. Gentleman reply to that point?

Mr. Carr: I think the hon. Member is misunderstanding me. I know it is complicated, but we are saying that in the normal sick pay scheme the employer undertakes to make up the pay to an agreed amount, which no doubt varies from company to company and according to the nature of the scheme and agreement. Under the Contracts of Employment Act the employer has a statutory duty to guarantee during a minimum period up up to levels defined in the Act which, when they are not factory rates, are levels based on average earnings over a previous period. We are


not in any way trying to relieve the employer of his statutory duty to pay a man or woman under notice for the minimum period laid down the amount necessary, but we are saying that he should not be asked to pay more than is required to bring the employee's earnings up to the level which the Contracts of Employment Act lays down under normal circumstances if a man is not ill or injured. I do not believe that that is a Draconian or cruel thing to do.

Mr. E. Fernyhough: Is the right hon. Gentleman saying that he believes it right that the employer should make up a man's wages when he is sick but should not pay more? Does he not appreciate that his colleague the Secretary of State for Social Services has imposed a burden on employers in that there is now to be no payment for the three waiting days? If a man is to have his full wages during sickness the employer will have to pay for the three waiting days benefit which the Government have now withdrawn.

Mr. Carr: I assure the right hon. Gentleman that there is nothing in this Amendment which will relieve the employer of any duty, obligation or undertaking of that kind. All we are relieving him of is the duty to make payments if the total payment is above the man's normal earnings. Unless or until the employee is away sick the employer is under no duty so to do, but it is absolutely right to protect the man's full earnings, and it was never intended that more than that should be done.
10.45 p.m.
I was asked a few specific questions. The hon. Member for Doncastar said that, despite the use of the word "shall", there was nothing in the Amendment to prevent an employer of his own free will on his own initiative or by agreement with the unions doing more than is laid down. There is nothing to prevent him. We have no intention to extend the scheme, as the hon. Member put it. One reason is that it would force workers to give information to their employers on how much they received in social insurance benefits in conditions in which they had not previously agreed to to do. We believe that that would be wrong.
In the arrangement under the voluntary sick pay scheme they have, in the terms

of agreement, agreed to do just that; but in other cases they have not, and it would be wrong to make them do so. We see no purpose in benefiting the employer who has not been making voluntary payments under a sick pay scheme to his workers in the normal way.
The hon. Member also asked what would happen to a worker who decided to contract out of the sick pay scheme on receiving notice of redundancy. If a worker under notice wanted to contract out of the employer's sick pay scheme, he would be seeking to vary the terms of his contract. If the employer did not agree to such a variation, the employee could seek to relieve himself of his condition by terminating his contract. But if he did, it would not be dismissal, but he would be sacking himself and the guarantee under Schedule 2 of the Contracts of Employment Act would not arise. Therefore, I do not think there is anything in that or that there is any cause to fear.
The right hon. Member for Newton asked what would happen if the employer's scheme were contributory. The answer is that this Amendment refers only to moneys paid by the employer. I am advised that any genuine insurance scheme to which the employee and employer had jointly contracted would not fall to be dealt with under the Amendment.
I accept that some of the matters which have been raised in this debate are genuine points, but I ask the House to accept the situation and to realise that this is being done in the context of the Contracts of Employment Act and substantially improves the security of employees and the help given to them when, alas, they are faced with the problem of redundancy. At present, an employee has no statutory right to minimum notice until he has been in a job for 26 weeks. That has been cut down to 13 weeks. When we get to longer-service employees, the Amendments extend the minimum time for people who have been in a job for between 10 and 25 years from four weeks' notice to six weeks' notice. For those who have been in a job for 15 years and upwards, the statutory notice will go up from four to eight weeks.

The Amendment we are seeking to make to the Contracts of Employment Act will greatly improve the benefits and the security.

Question put, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendments:—

The House divided: Ayes 269, Noes 234.

Division No. 452.]
AYES
10. 49 p.m.


Adley, Robert
Fisher, Nigel (Surbiton)
McLaren, Martin


Alison, Michael (Barkston Ash)
Fookes, Miss Janet
Maclean, Sir Fitzroy


Allason, James (Hemel Hempstead)
Foster, Sir John
McMaster, Stanley


Archer, Jeffrey (Louth)
Fowler, Norman
Macmillan, Maurice (Farnham)


Atkins, Humphrey
Fox, Marcus
McNair-Wilson, Michael


Awdry, Daniel
Fraser, Rt.Hn.Hugh (St'fford & Stone)
McNair-Wilson, Patrick (NewForest)


Baker, Kenneth (St. Marylebone)
Fry, Peter
Maddan, Martin


Baker, W. H. K. (Banff)
Calbraith, Hn. T. G.
Madel, David


Balniel, Lord
Gardner, Edward
Maginnis, John E.


Barber, Rt Hn. Anthony
Gibson-Watt, David
Marten, Neil


Batsford, Brian
Gilmour, Ian (Norfolk, C.)
Mather, Carol


Beamish, Col. Sir Tufton
Gilmour, Sir John (Fife, E.)
Maude, Angus


Bell, Ronald
Glyn, Dr. Alan
Mawby, Ray


Bennett, Sir Frederic (Torquay)
Godber, Rt. Hn. J. B.
Maxwell-Hyslop, R. J.


Benyon, W.
Goodhart, Philip
Meyer, Sir Anthony


Berry, Hn. Anthony
Goodhew, Victor
Mills, Peter (Torrington)


Biffen, John
Gorst, John
Mitchell, Lt.Col.C. (Aberdeenshire, W)


Biggs-Oavison, John
Gower, Raymond
Mitchell, David (Basingstoke)


Blaker, Peter
Grant, Anthony (Harrow, C.)
Moate, Roger


Boardman, Tom (Leicester, S.W.)
Gray, Hamish
Molyneaux, James


Body, Richard
Green, Alan
Money, Ernle


Boscawen, Robert
Grylls, Michael
Monks, Mrs. Connie


Bossom, Sir Clive
Gummer, Selwyn
Monro, Hector


Bowden, Andrew
Gurden, Harold
Montgomery, Fergus


Boyd-Corpenter, Rt. Hn. John
Hall, Miss Joan (Keighley)
More, Jasper


Braine, Bernard
Hall, John (Wycombe)
Morgan-Giles, Rear-Adm.



Hall-Davis, A. G. F.



Bray, Ronald
Hamilton, Michael (Salisbury)
Morrison, Charles (Devizes)


Brewis, John
Hannam, John (Exeter)
Mudd, David


Brinton, Sir Tatton
Harrison, Col. Sir Harwood (Eye)
Murton, Oscar


Brocklebank-Fowler, Christopher
Haselhurst, Alan
Neave, Airey


Bruce-Gardyne, J.
Hastings, Stephen
Noble, Rt. Hn. Michael


Bryan, Paul
Havers, Michael
Normanton, Tom


Buchanan-Smith, Alick (Angus, N&M)
Hawkins, Paul
Nott, John


Buck, Antony
Hayhoe, Barney
Onslow, Cranley


Bullus, Sir Eric
Hicks, Robert
Oppenheim, Mrs. Sally


Burden, F. A.
Higgins, Terence L.
Orr, Capt. L. P. S.


Butler, Adam (Bosworth)
Hiley, Joseph
Owen, Idris (Stockport, N.)


Carlisle, Mark
Hill, John E. B. (Norfolk, S.)
Page, Graham (Crosby)


Carr, Rt. Hn. Robert
Hill, James (Southampton, Test)
Paisley, Rev. Ian


Channon, Paul
Holt, Miss Mary
Parkinson, Cecil (Enfield, W.)


Chapman, Sydney
Hooson, Emlyn
Peel, John


Chataway, Rt. Hn. Christopher
Hordern, Peter
Percival, Ian


Chichester-Clark, R.
Hornby, Richard
Pink, R. Bonner


Churchill, W. S.
Hornsby-Smith, Rt.Hn.Dame Patricia
Pounder, Rafton


Clark, William (Surrey, E.)
Howe, Hn. Sir Geoffrey (Reigate)
Powell, Rt. Hn. J. Enoch


Clarke, Kenneth (Rushcliffe)
Howell, David (Guildford)
Price, David (Eastleigh)


Clegg, Walter
Howell, Ralph (Norfolk, N.)
Prior, Rt. Hn. J. M. L.


Cockeram, Eric
Hunt, John
Proudfoot, Wilfred


Cooke, Robert
Hutchison, Michael Clark
Pym, Rt. Hn. Francis


Coombs, Derek
Iremonger, T. L.
Quennell, Miss J. M.


Corfield, Rt. Hn. Frederick
James, David
Raison, Timothy


Cormack, Patrick
Jesse), Toby
Rawlinson, Rt. Hn. Sir Peter


Costain, A. P.
Johnson Smith, G. (E. Grinstead)
Redmond, Robert


Critchley, Julian
Jopling, Michael
Reed, Laurance (Bolton, E.)


Crouch, David
Kershaw, Anthony
Rees, Peter (Dover)


Curran, Charles
Kilfedder, James
Rees-Davies, W. R.


Davies, Rt. Hn. John (Knutsford)
Kimball, Marcus
Renton, Rt. Hn. Sir David


d'Avigdor-Goldsmid, Sir Henry
King, Evelyn (Dorset, S.)
Rhys Williams, Sir Brandon


d'Avigdor-Goldsmid, Maj.-Gen.James
Kinsey, J. R.
Ridley, Hn. Nicholas


Dean, Paul
Kirk, Peter
Ridsdale, Julian


Deedes, Rt. Hn. W. F.
Kitson, Timothy
Roberts, Wyn (Conway)


Dodds-Parker, Douglas
Knox, David
Rodgers, Sir John (Sevenoaks)


Drayson, C. B.




du Cann, Rt. Hn. Edward
Lambton, Antony
Rossi, Hugh (Hornsey)


Dykes, Hugh
Lane, David
Rost, Peter


Eden, Sir John
Langford-Holt, Sir John
Russell, Sir Ronald


Edwards, Nicholas (Pembroke)
Legge-Bourke, Sir Harry
St. John-Stevas, Norman


Elliot, Capt. Walter (Carshalton)
Le Marchant, Spencer
Scott, Nicholas


Elliott, R. W. (N'c'tle-upon-Tyne, N.)
Lewis, Kenneth (Rutland)
Scott-Hopkins, James


Emery, Peter
Lloyd, Ian (P'tsm'th, Langstone)
Sharples, Richard


Eyre, Reginald
Longden, Gilbert
Shaw, Michael (Sc'b'gh & Whitby)


Farr, John
Loveridge, John
Shelton, William (Clapham)


Fell, Anthony
Luce, R. N.
Simeons, Charles


Fenner, Mrs. Peggy
McAdden, Sir Stephen
Sinclair, Sir George


Fidler, Michael
MacArthur, Ian
Skeet, T. H. H.


Finsberg, Geoffrey (Hampstead)
McCrindle, R. A.
Smith, Dudley (W'wick & L'mington)




Soref, Harold
Thomas, John Stradling (Monmouth)
Ward, Dame Irene


Spence, John
Tilney, John
Weatherill, Bernard


Sproat, lain
Trafford, Dr. Anthony
Wells, John (Maidstone)


Stanbrook, Ivor
Trew, Peter
White, Roger (Gravesend)


Stewart-Smith, Geoffrey (Belper)
Tugendhat, Christopher
Whitelaw, Rt. Hn. William


Stodart, Anthony (Edinburgh, W.)
Turton, Rt. Hn. Sir Robin
Wiggin, Jerry


Stoddart-Scott, Col. Sir M.
van Straubenzee, w. R.
Wilkinson, John


Stokes, John
Vaughan, Dr. Gerard
Wood, Rt. Hn. Richard


Stuttaford, Dr. Tom
Vickers, Dame Joan
Woodnutt, Mark


Sutcliffe, John
Waddington, David
Worsley, Marcus


Tapsell, Peter
Walder, David (Clitheroe)
Wylie, Rt. Hn. N. R.


Taylor, Edward M.(G'gow, Cathcart)
Walker, Rt. Hn. Peter (Worcester)



Taylor, Frank (Moss Side)
Walker-Smith, Rt. Hn. Sir Derek
TELLERS FOR THE AYES:


Taylor, Robert (Croydon, N.W.)
Wall, Patrick
Mr. Keith Speed and


Tebbit, Norman
Walters, Dennis
Mr. Tim Fortescue.


Temple, John M.






NOES


Albu, Austen
English, Michael
Lewis, Ron (Carlisle)


Allaun, Frank (Salford, E.)
Evans, Fred
Lipton, Marcus


Archer, Peter (Rowley Regis)
Faulds, Andrew
Loughlin, Charles


Armstrong, Ernest
Fernyhough, Rt. Hn. E.
Lyon, Alexander W. (York)


Ashton, Joe
Fisher, Mrs. Doris (B'ham, Ladywood)
Lyons, Edward (Bradford, E.)


Atkinson, Norman
Fletcher, Ted (Darlington)
Mabon, Dr. J. Dickson


Bagier, Gordon A. T.
Foley, Maurice
McBride, Neil


Barnes, Michael
Foot, Michael
McCartney, Hugh


Barnett, Guy (Greenwich)
Ford, Ben
McGuire, Michael


Barnett, Joel
Forrester, John
Mackenzie, Gregor


Beaney, Alan
Fraser, John (Norwood)
Mackie, John


Benn, Rt. Hn. Anthony Wedgwood
Freeson, Reginald
Maclennan, Robert


Bennet, James (Glasgow, Bridgeton)
Galpern, Sir Myer
McMillan, Tom (Glasgow, C.)


Bidwell, Sydney
Garrett, W. E.
McNamara, J. Kevin


Bishop, E. S.
Gilbert, Dr. John
Mallalieu, J. P. W. (Huddersfield, E.)


Blenkinsop, Arthur
Ginsburg, David
Marks, Kenneth


Boardman, H. (Leigh)
Gordon Walker, Rt. Hn. P. C.
Marquand, David


Booth, Albert
Gourlay, Harry
Marsden, F.


Bottomley, Rt. Hn. Arthur
Grant, George (Morpeth)
Marshall, Dr. Edmund


Boyden, James (Bishop Auckland)
Grant, John D. (Islington, E.)
Mason, Rt. Hn. Roy


Bradley, Tom
Griffiths, Eddie (Brightside)
Meacher, Michael



Hamilton, James (Bothwell)



Brown, Bob (N'c'tle-upon-Tyne, W.)
Hamilton, William (Fife, W.)
Mellish, Rt. Hn. Robert


Brown, Hugh D. (G'gow, Provan)
Hannan, William (G'gow, Maryhill)
Mendelson, John


Brown, Ronald (Shoreditch & F'bury)
Hardy, Peter
Millan, Bruce


Buchan, Norman
Harper, Joseph
Miller, Dr. M. S.


Buchanan, Richard (G'gow, Sp'burn)
Harrison, Walter (Wakefield)
Milne, Edward (Blyth)


Butler, Mrs. Joyce (Wood Green)
Hart, Rt. Hn. Judith
Mitchell, R. C. (S'hampton, Itchen)


Callaghan, Rt. Hn. James
Healey, Rt. Hn. Denis
Molloy, William


Campbell, I. (Dunbartonshire, W.)
Heifer, Eric S.
Morgan, Elystan (Cardiganshire)


Cant, R. B.
Horam, John
Morris, Alfred (Wythenshawe)


Carmichael, Neil
Houghton, Rt. Hn. Douglas
Morris, Charles R. (Openshaw)


Castle, Rt. Hn. Barbara
Howell, Denis (Small Heath)
Morris, Rt. Hn. John (Aberavon)


Clark, David (Colne Valley)
Huckfield, Leslie
Moyle, Roland


Cocks, Michael (Bristol, S.)
Hughes, Rt. Hn. Cledwyn (Anglesey)
Mulley, Rt. Hn. Frederick


Coleman, Donald
Hughes, Mark (Durham)
Murray, Ronald King


Conlan, Bernard
Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen, N.)
Ogden, Eric


Corbet, Mrs. Freda
Hughes, Roy (Newport)
O'Halloran, Michael


Cox, Thomas (Wandsworth, C.)
Hunter, Adam
O'Malley, Brian


Crawshaw, Richard
lrvine, Rt.Hn.SirArthur (Edge Hill)
Oram, Bert


Crosland, Rt. Hn. Anthony
Janner, Greville
Orme, Stanley


Crossman, Rt. Hn. Richard
Jay, Rt. Hn. Douglas
Oswald, Thomas


Cunningham, G. (Islington, S.W.)
Jeger, Mrs.Lena (H'b'n&St.P'cras, S.)
Owen, Dr. David (Plymouth, Sutton)


Dalyell, Tam
Jenkins, Hugh (Putney)
Padley, Walter


Davidson, Arthur
Jenkins, Rt. Hn. Roy (Stechford)
Paget, R. T.


Davies, Denzil (Llanelly)
John, Brynmor
Palmer, Arthur


Davies, G. Elfed (Rhondda, E.)
Johnson, Carol (Lewisham, S.)
Pardoe, John


Davies, Ifor (Gower)
Johnson, James (K'ston-on-Hull, W.)
Parry, Robert (Liverpool, Exchange)


Davis, Clinton (Hackney, C.)
Johnson, Walter (Derby, S.)
Peart, Rt. Hn. Fred


Davis, Terry (Bromsgrove)
Jones, Barry (Flint, E.)
Pendry, Tom


de Freitas, Rt. Hn. Sir Geoffrey
Jones, Dan (Burnley)
Pentland, Norman


Delargy, H. J.
Jones, Rt.Hn.Sir Elwyn (W.Ham, S.)
Perry, Ernest G.


Dell, Rt. Hn. Edmund
Jones, Gwynoro (Carmarthen)
Prentice, Rt. Hn. Reg.


Dempsey, James
Jones, T. Alec (Rhondda, W.)



Doig, Peter
Kaufman, Gerald
Prescott, John


Douglas, Dick (Stirlingshire, E.)
Kelley, Richard
Price, J. T. (Westhoughton)


Douglas-Mann, Bruce
Kinnock, Neil
Probert, Arthur


Driberg, Tom
Lambie, David
Reed, D. (Sedgefield)


Duffy, A. E. P.
Latham, Arthur
Rees, Merlyn (Leeds, S.)


Dunnett, Jack
Lawson, George
Rhodes, Geoffrey


Eadie, Alex
Leadbitter, Ted
Richard, Ivor


Edelman, Maurice
Lee, Rt. Hn. Frederick
Roberts, Albert (Normanton)


Edwards, Robert (Bilston)
Leonard, Dick
Roberts, Rt.Hn.Goronwy (Caernarvon)


Edwards, William (Merioneth)
Lever, Rt. Hn. Harold
Robertson, John (Paisley)


Ellis, Tom
Lewis, Arthur (W. Ham N.)
Rodgers, William (Stockton-on-Tees)







Roper, John
Strang, Gavin
Watkins, David


Rose, Paul B.
Summerskill, Hn. Dr. Shirley
Weitzman, David


Sandelson, Neville
Taverns, Dick
Wells, William (Walsall, N.)


Sheldon, Robert (Ashton-under-Lyne)
Thomas, Rt.Hn.George (Cardiff, W.)
Whitehead, Phillip


Shore, Rt. Hon. Peter (Stepney)
Thomas, Jeffrey (Abertillery)
Willey, Rt. Hn. Frederick


Short, Mrs. Renée (W'hampton, N.E.)
Thomson, Rt. Hn. G. (Dundee, E.)
Williams, Alan (Swansea, W.)


Silverman, Julius
Tinn, James
Williams, Mrs. Shirley (Hitchin)


Skinner, Dennis
Tomney, Frank
Wilson, Alexander (Hamilton)


Small, William
Torney, Tom
Wilson, Rt. Hn. Harold (Huyton)


Smith, John (Lanarkshire, N.)
Tuck, Raphael
Wilson, William (Coventry, S.)


Spearing, Nigel
Urwin, T. W.
Woof, Robert


Spriggs, Leslie
Varley, Eric G.



Stallard, A. w.
Wainwright, Edwin



Stewart, Rt. Hn. Michael (Fulham)
Walker, Harold (Doncaster)
TELLERS FOR THE NOES:


Stoddart, David (Swindon)
Wallace, George
Mr. John Golding and


Storehouse, Rt. Hn. John

Mr. William Hamling.

Subsequent Lords Amendment agreed to.

Clause 22

FAIR AND UNFAIR DISMISSAL

Lords Amendment: No. 48, in page 17, leave out lines 3 to 7 and insert—
(1) In determining for the purposes of this Act whether the dismissal of an employee was fair or unfair, it shall be for the employer to show—

(a) what was the reason (or, if there was more than one, the principal reason) for the dismissal, and
(b) that it was a reason falling within the next following subsection, or some other substantial reason of a kind such as to justify the dismissal of an employee holding the position which that employee held.

(1A) In subsection (1)(b) of this section the reference to a reason falling within this subsection is a reference to a reason which

11.0 p.m.

The Solicitor-General: I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment.
It may be for the convenience of the House if, with this Amendment, we discuss Lords Amendments No. 49, in page 17. line 16, at end insert—
(1B) Where the employer has fulfilled the requirements of subsection (1) of this section, then, subject to sections 23 and 24 of this Act, the question whether the dismissal was fair or unfair shall be determined in accordance with the following provisions of this section 
No. 50, in page 17, line 41, leave out from beginning to ("shall") in line 10 on page 18 and insert—
() Subject to subsections (2) and (3) of this section, the determination of the question whether the dismissal was fair or unfair, having regard to the reason shown by the employer, shall depend on whether in the circumstances he acted reasonably or unreasonably in treating it as a sufficient reason for dismissing the employee; and that question 
No. 57, in Clause 31, page 23, line 38, leave out "good reason" and insert "reason fulfilling the requirements of section 22(1) of this Act"
and No. 326, in Schedule 6, page 154, line 14, at end insert—
. Where in accordance with the regulations an industrial tribunal determines in the same proceedings—

(a) a question referred to it under Part I of the Redundancy Payments Act 1965, and
(b) a complaint presented under section 102 of this Act,


section 9(2)(b) of that Act (whereby a dismissal is to be presumed, unless the contrary is proved, to have been by reason of redundancy) shall not have effect for the purposes of the proceedings in so far as they relate to the complaint under section 102 of this Act.
The purpose of these Amendments is, in response to observations made both in this House and in another place about the unfair dismissal provisions, to make plain where the burden of proof lies at each stage.

Amendment No. 48 alters the first part of Clause 22(1) so as to make it plain that it is for the employer to show first what was the reason for the dismissal and, secondly, that the reason was one of those listed in the subsection as it stands or some other substantial reason relevant to the work which the dismissed employee was doing. The opportunity of showing some other substantial reason replaces the idea to the same effect which was in subsection (4) originally, save that it makes it plain that the reason has to be a substantial one and not simply a good one.

Amendment No. 49 is one which makes a small change in the structure of the Clause but which has no new effect.

Amendment No. 50 removes the original provisions in subsection (4) which were a rather lengthy way of showing some other good reason, and removes from the employee the burden of showing the unreasonableness of the employer's decision as to the weight and significance of the reason justifying the dismissal. Instead, Amendment No. 50 now leaves it for the tribunal to decide, once the employer has shown the reason for the dismissal, whether the employer's action in regarding that as a sufficient reason is reasonable.

The Clause still maintains the employee's protection in subsection (2) regarding a dismissal on grounds of taking part in trade union activities and still preserves the express provision in subsection (3) for a man who is unfairly selected in a redundancy situation.

Amendment No. 57 is a consequential one in Clause 31 because the idea of a good reason has been replaced by the more solid one of a substantial reason.

Amendment No. 326 is one relating to the situation which may arise where a claim is brought before a tribunal


alleging that the employee is entitled to compensation either on the ground of redundancy or on the ground of unfair dismissal. In that situation, it removes the presumption contained in the Redundancy Payments Act to the effect that the dismissal must be regarded as due to redundancy and leaves it to the tribunal to decide whether the claimant has shown that it was due to unfairness of dismissal or to redundancy as the alternative ground of his claim.

The upshot of the provisions, included in response to a case strongly presented by the Opposition in another place, is to make plain where the burden of proof lies regarding unfair dismissals: that the employer is obliged to show that the dismissal was for one or other of the reasons set out in Clause 22(1) or some other substantial reason.

The total effect of the provisions is plain and fair and in accordance with the Government's intention, which was made clear in response to representations by the Opposition both here and in another place.

Mr. Rose: One thing of which I was certain on reading the Clause dealing with unfair dismissal—and I am convinced in my belief having listened to the hon. and learned Gentleman—was that these provisions displayed many curious lapses and ambiguities in drafting, to say nothing of certain matters of principle, such as the question of reinstatement rather than re-engagement, which we were unable to debate at an earlier stage. In many respects, the problems which the Solicitor-General has outlined might have been dealt with properly at an earlier stage if we had had the time in Committee and on Report to discuss unfair dismissal. Of those things which we were prevented from discussing, I felt that the question of unfair dismissal was the most important.
I am not surprised that the Amendments which have come back from another place are partly in response to Amendments moved by some of my noble Friends. It is wholly unsatisfactory that problems as fundamental as the right to reinstatement and the burden of proof for unfair dismissal should not be debated first in this House, but in the other place. I acknowledge that this group

of Amendments attempts in some measure to meet some of the points raised by my noble Friends in the other place.
I assure the Solicitor-General that in raising a number of legal points and technicalities, it is not a question of hair splitting. There are many problems which disturb not only Members of this House, but members of the legal profession and the trade union movement.

Amendment No. 48 places responsibility on the employer to show the reason for the dismissal and then to show that it falls within the subsection specifying the possible reasons. I am still unhappy about the drafting. What he should have to show under (a) is surely that there was justification under the subsection. I think that there is a misuse of the word "reason", as if it were synonymous with justification. This is an important point of drafting which has not yet been ventilated.

I think that there is a genuine attempt here on the part of the Government to meet the Opposition on the question of the onus of proof; but the onus appears merely to be to show that there was a reason for the dismissal and that it was one of the specified reasons listed.

I accept that Amendments Nos. 49 and 50 go some way towards meeting the problem of the onus of proof, but they do not wholly answer it because the employer has to show only sufficient reason, and reason is defined in subsection (1)(a). Surely what is required is for the employer not to have sufficient reason, but sufficient justification for dismissing the employee under the heading of one or other of the reasons specified. It is a vitally important distinction. I hope that the Solicitor-General will turn his mind to it.

I can only hope that when an industrial tribunal has to deal with these matters it will treat the word "reason" in Amendment No. 50 as if it were the word "justification". I think that it would help towards that if today the Solicitor-General stated that this was the intention. That might assist tribunals in this difficult task.

I wholly accept also that as a result of the original Clauses and the Amendments that follow, the Solicitor-General must insert Lords Amendment No. 326. Again, I regret that for the purposes of


unfair dismissal, he has not adopted the same type of formula as was adopted in Section 9(2)(b) of the Redundancy Payments Act—in other words, placing the onus fairly and squarely on the employer by means of a presumption that has to be rebutted by the employer.

I have had the pleasure, if that is what it may be called, of appearing before a number of industrial tribunals. In redundancy cases, the presumption of redundancy is a great help to the worker who is seeking compensation, because often the worker does not have exact and precise knowledge of the detailed operation of his employers. It does not in any way prejudice the fair and honest employer who can always rebut the presumption, but it is important to know where the presumption lies. A similar presumption in the case of unfair dismissal, in cases brought under that heading, would easily have placed the onus of proof fairly and squarely where it should lie—that is, upon the employer.

I foresee difficulty in what I call the "either/or" case where there may be an unfair dismissal or there may be a redundancy. I know that the Solicitor-General has tried to deal with this problem in the Amendments. Again, however, the burden to be discharged is what matters and a rebuttable presumption would, to my mind, have been the most convenient way of dealing with this matter and would have brought about a far less complicated structure in the Bill. Redundancy would only be presumed where the employee took action under that heading and it would be a defence, if it was established, to an action for unfair dismissal. I therefore see no problem in that.

In any event, subsection (3) shows that the problem of overlap may still exist concerning cases when there is a selection for dismissal, when there is a redundancy but the employer has to decide who will be made redundant. He may exercise that discretion fairly or unfairly. In subsection (3), the word "reason" is used in its correct sense; it is a reason rather than a justification. That reinforces the problem, to which I alluded earlier, of the manner in which the word "reason" is used in other

parts of the Amendment where it means something entirely different.

Clause 22(3) uses the words "it is shown". I am not clear, although I have read it carefully, whether Lords Amendment No. 48 will apply subsection (1) to subsection (3). It specifically refers to subsection (2). If I am given the Solicitor-General's assurance, I shall accept it, but I cannot see a reference to subsection (3). Subsection (1)(a) and (b) are applicable to subsection (2). There is no specific reference to their applicability or otherwise to subsection (3). I should like to have an explanation from the Solicitor-General about this.

Another problem arises concerning the word "unreasonably" in Lords Amendment No. 50. We are all familiar with the problem of what is reasonable and what is unreasonable in law. It is a problem to which the courts have to turn their minds and with which we are familiar in, for example, the matter of reasonable care. It is a concept that we accept as routine in our legal system.

11.15 p.m.

But what is not reasonable is the fact that a case of dismissal might well present a problem of a very different order from the normal problem of what is reasonable and what is not, as it has to be dealt with from day to day in the courts. I say "of a different order", because we have to deal with problems such as reasonable conduct. Nothing in the Bill makes it clear whether reasonable conduct applies merely to conduct at the place of work and during the period of employment or conduct in a general sense, which may take it outside the sphere of employment.

The subjective factors in industrial relations are such that what is reasonable to an employer and what is reasonable to an employee are very different things, and whereas the concept of what is reasonable may easily be applied by the courts to many other problems, it presents extreme difficulty in industrial relations, because of the relationship—and sometimes the antagonism—between employer and employee. A clear statement on the question of onus, again by means of a rebuttable presumption—showing justification rather than reasonableness—rather than using the concept of what is


reasonable or unreasonable, would have avoided that problem.

The fear is that we are dealing with conduct that may occur outside the employment. We have not been unmindful of the fact that there have been recent examples in education, where conduct outside the employment has been used as a pretext for the dismissal of persons employed in that sphere. This is a practical problem, which could be solved merely by the presumption that all cases of dismissal were cases of unfair dismissal unless the employer proved otherwise to the satisfaction of the tribunal.

It would be outside the bounds of order to go into great detail on the Clause itself, but I want to deal with subsection (1)(a), which is extremely wide when linked to subsection (6) and this Amendment, together with Lords Amendment No. 50, which does nothing to help narrow the definition.

I have dealt with a number of what might be termed technical or legalistic points. I am sure that some of my hon. and learned Friends—as well as those who have experience in the trade union movement—will have something to say about the practical problems of unfair dismissal; all that I say is that although the Amendments meet some of the objections raised in another place, if we had had time to discuss the matter in detail earlier all this difficulty could have been avoided. Suggestions could have come from hon. Members on both sides of the House about the question of onus, and the manner in which unfair dismissal should be dealt with, and a far more satisfactory conclusion could have been reached.

We are left with a pretty tatty piece of drafting—a rather unsatisfactory position for the tribunals in interpreting the law. That is a direct result of the abuse by the Government at an earlier stage, when they imposed a guillotine and prevented the discussion of an important part of the Bill—a part that, unfortunately, we did not discuss in this House either in Committee or on Report.

Mr. Greville Janner: I echo what has been said by my hon. Friend the Member for Manchester, Blackley (Mr. Rose) about the importance of this part of the Bill, which, in my view, is likely to have, actually or poten-

tially, quite as great an effect on most workers, at every level, as any others of its provisions. It is a disgrace that we have not had opportunity to consider it in detail up to now.
At this stage, we can consider an Amendment which puts the burden of proof on the employer, but it is essential that we look at the realities of the situation and see how it is likely to work in practice. Although it will undoubtedly, and rightly, make it more difficult for an employer to dismiss, and an employer will have to be much more careful in so doing, it will in one sense put a premium on summary dismissal. Drafted as it is, it will, in my view, encourage employers to dismiss without notice.
At present, it is possible to dismiss anyone at any time by giving notice or pay instead, and an employer who dismisses workers summarily cannot be forced to pay them any more by way of damages than they would have received had they been dismissed with proper notice. When the Clause, as amended, comes into force, the employer who dismisses fairly will be in the same position as today, but an employer who dismisses unfairly may have to pay damages or compensation up to £4,160.
A major employer may be pleased to pay £4,000 to be rid of a trouble-maker for ever. If a shop steward is prepared to close down a business by his activities, if he has sufficient strength in his voice and power in his arm to control the workers in a factory in a way which the employer does not like, it may be well worth £4,000 to dismiss him, since such a sum may represent a few minutes' production time in a major works. So that must be carefully watched.
For the small employer, a shop keeper or someone with a few employees, £4,000 is a great deal of money. He will take care how he dismisses a worker, but, none the less, he will have to be prepared to justify that dismissal, if necessary, according to the rules laid down in the amended Clause. How will he do it? In practice, if he wishes to avoid the possibility of paying over £4,000, he will have to show that the dismissal related to the capability or qualifications of the employee, to the conduct of the employee, that the employee was redundant, or that he could not continue to work in the position without creating an illegality. In my


opinion, it is likely that conduct will be the ground most relied on.
If an employer wishes to rely on conduct, he will now have to show not only that the reason was the conduct of the employee but, quite rightly, that he acted reasonably in the circumstances in treating that conduct, or misconduct, as a sufficient reason for dismissing the employee.
Let us assume that an employer has it in mind to dismiss an employee. He knows that, if he dismisses him unfairly, he will be liable to pay over £4,000. Incidentally, the personnel managers and others whose business it is to hire and fire may themselves lose their jobs if they dismiss too many people unfairly; and that in itself is quite fair. But how are they to handle this situation? If they wish to avoid paying over £4,000, they will have to show before a tribunal that the dismissal was fair. To show that it was fair they will have to prove that they reasonably relied upon the conduct. Nowadays there are many cases where an employer gives an employee who is a borderline case for summary dismissal his pay in lieu of notice and a reference, and the man leaves with something.
I fear that under the new amended Clause the employer will be tempted to dismiss a man summarily for various reasons. First, if he has to face an attempt by the employee to obtain compensation he will be able to show that he was dismissed because of his conduct, and it will be easier to show that he acted reasonably if he can point to a summary dismissal rather than a dismissal with notice or with pay or a reference. In other words, he will doubtless show the tribunal that he relied upon misconduct and acted in a manner which was consistent with serious misconduct, which is what I suspect the tribunals will expect an employer to show I hope that the Solicitor-General will say what sort of burden of proof in conduct cases he would expect the tribunal to accept in regard to substantial reasons, a substantial reason being more than a good reason, as he has put it. What is a substantial reason? Is a substantial reason in the case of conduct likely to be the same sort of reason as would nowadays amount to sufficient reason for summary dismissal—serious misconduct rather than ordinary, mild misconduct? There is that first, main risk.
Second, an employee is always at a disadvantage when he is dismissed. This problem goes right up to the most senior employees. When a man is dismissed he needs the money which he could get if he were to settle his claim. Unlike the company, in general, he cannot do without the money which is being withheld. If the man is summarily dismissed, by definition he does not have the money he would otherwise receive if he were shown out of the door with his notice or his pay in lieu. Therefore, he is more likely to settle the case before it reaches the tribunal. At this stage we have the problem of the queue outside the tribunal created by this legislation. Clause 153 specifically forbids the contracting out of a man's rights under the Bill. It prevents a person from giving up his right to present a case to the tribunal. But the conciliation officers will have the job of trying to encourage people to settle cases before they reach the tribunal. Is it the Solicitor-General's view that it will be possible to settle a claim for compensation for unfair dismissal under Clause 22 as amended without the intervention of the conciliation officer, or will that amount to a contracting out? As I read the Bill, it will, which means that the hon. and learned Gentleman had better set about appointing many hundreds of conciliation officers. How many conciliation officers does he propose to appoint, and when?
A man who says that he has been unfairly dismissed and is entitled to compensation will take his place in the queue on the way to the tribunal. He will know that he is faced with delay. The extent of the delay will depend upon the number of tribunals and the speed at which they work. Will the hon. and learned Gentleman tell us how many tribunals it is proposed to appoint and when?
11.30 p.m.
If the queue is as great as I expect it to be, those who are summarily dismissed, or those who are dismissed with notice but unfairly dismissed, will have a long wait and are then going to be prepared to settle their cases. They will be faced with summary dismissal and the burden of proving the allegation that the dismissal was fair will rest on the employer. But it will be a burden which the employee may fear will be discharged. The nature and the extent of


the fear will depend to some extent on documentation which will come before the tribunal. When there is an attempt to dismiss a man, when it is known that a man is to be got rid of, it is simple to prepare the way for the dismissal. In general this is done, particularly in the case of those employed above shop floor level, by the preparation of documented complaints. I recollect that there is to be legal aid before the tribunals in connection with unfair dismissal cases, and I should be grateful if the hon. and learned Gentleman would confirm that.
Assuming that all these matters are overcome, we then have the unfortunate dismissed employee in a much less happy-position than a quick reading of this Clause might suggest. On the face of it, his position will be greatly improved; in practice I fear that there are subtleties within the Clause which may lead not only to difficulties for the tribunals and for those who have to state whether the tribunals have come to their decisions on a correct understanding of the law, but also difficulties for the employees themselves.
One of the grounds upon which it will be possible to show fair dismissal will be that the man was dismissed as redundant. In this case it would, of course, prevent a man from obtaining two sets of payment—a redundancy payment and a payment of compensation. One can dismiss a man unfairly if he is redundant but he will get his redundancy pay; conversely, the other method would apply. The danger here is that redundancy pay comes 50 per cent. out of the Exchequer and there will be a temptation to an employer where possible to make his payment 50 per cent. out of the redundancy fund. I trust that the Department of Employment will keep a careful eye on this sort of manoeuvre.
As in the case of redundancy payments, so in the case of compensation for unfair dismissal: a man will get neither until he has been employed for two years, and wherever the onus of proof is placed, this is a fact which no doubt will weigh heavily with employers. They know, and it is right for them to know, that it is for them to show reason for the dismissal; but equally they will know that this protection applies only for people who have been employed for two years or more. I should like to know why they should have

to wait two years for the protection to apply. Is it not likely that before that time arrives, and in particular during the last two months of the two-year period, there is going to be a temptation to dismiss before risk of unfair dismissal arises under this Clause?
In many ways, this Clause will do a great deal of good but on the other hand we should bear in mind that there are dangers inherent in it, and it is a great pity that we should have to debate it at this late hour and at this stage in this enormously lengthy procedure.

Dame Irene Ward: I am glad that some changes are to be made to the Bill, for I wish it to be as fair as possible to both employers and employees and it is important that employers should have to justify dismissals. I like to be a straightforward individual and to give instances to demonstrate my argument. I spent the weekend in my own part of the world and while I was there some employees put to me an example of what they regarded as unfair dismissal. I assume that if these provisions had been law, the employers concerned would have had to justify those dismissals.
At this moment, I am firmly on the side of the employees in this matter and perhaps for once the Opposition will be inclined to support me on that account. [HON. MEMBERS: "Disgraceful!"] It is not at all disgraceful. I believe that I am being absolutely straightforward. I want employers to be fair when employees are dismissed.
On Tyneside there is the firm of C. A. Parsons which for some weeks has been persuading some of its employees, already members of one union, to join another, and it has been putting pressure on them to do so. This attempt to force trade unionists to join a union chosen by the employer has caused grave anxiety over the past few weeks. About seven days ago, the employers issued notices to the employees concerned saying that if they did not join the union of the employers' choice they would be dismissed, although those employees were fully paid up and responsible members of another trade union. If it were brought before a tribunal, this would be an interesting case because the employers would have to justify the dismissal of men


who had committed no offence except that of wishing to remain members of the union to which they have belonged for many years.
Over the weekend, many of these workers came to see me, and I told them that if the opportunity arose—and I am glad that it has arisen—I would put on record, before the House of Commons, their objections to their employers' actions. If it is possible, under the Bill, for aggrieved trade unionists to complain to the tribunal about their employers' actions, nothing will give me greater pleasure, because in this case the employers are treating their employees extremely badly. I know that when the Bill is passed employers will be prevented from behaving in that way, but some employers are so clever in their support of the trade unions which they select—which are certainly not the trade unions which I would select—that they have issued notices to some of their employees before the Bill can be placed on the Statute Book.
I promised the trade unionists who approached me, as their Member of Parliament, that I would bring the action of their employers before the House. Those employers are dismissing men who have committed no offence other than to wish to remain members of the trade union which has faithfully served the industrial establishment over many years. C. A. Parsons want D.A.T.A. as their negotiating body and the professional engineers, who belong to U.K.A.P.E.—as they have every right to belong to U.K.A.P.E.—are objecting.
We have heavy unemployment on Tyneside, but these employers are throwing these men out of work and adding to the unemployment—simply because the employers want to choose the trade union and not to allow their long-serving workers to remain attached to their own union. I hope that the Solicitor-General will assure me that there is no justification for employers to behave in this way. I take great exception to their action and I stand up for the trade unionists who are members of U.K.A.P.E.

11.45 p.m.

Mrs. Neil McBride: As the hon. Member for Tynemouth (Dame Irene Ward) has said, the question of unfair dismissal, if proved, is a very

serious thing. Even if damages are awarded there is the question of reinstatement. It may be that a craftsman likes to follow his trade at a particular factory, or likes a certain firm because it is near his home or for some other good reason. The Government should tackle the important question of who has responsibility for this. There should be a provision for reinstatement in the event of unfair dismissal.
Dismissal depends on whether an employer in the circumstances, in the words of the Amendment, acted "reasonably or unreasonably" in dismissing an employee. This gives an employer great scope and will result in many and varied legal interpretations of these words.
Unfair dismissal can be the most disruptive thing in industrial relations and here I have an advantage over the Solicitor-General because I spent 25 years in the great shipyard we were discussing earlier in the debate about U.C.S. It is not the ostensible reason for dismissal that can cause the trouble, it is the nagging pin-pricks than can lead to the dismissal.
The fact that insufficient time has been allocated to this Bill means that it is a hotch-potch. Anyone who has worked in industry knows that and, speaking as a former shop steward—a much maligned race—may I remind the Solicitor-General that while industry marches on its generals it can never carry out its work without the "non-coms". I wonder whether the hon. and learned Gentleman has thought about the legal costs which will be added to industry's bill as a result of this Measure. Summary dismissal will become the order of the day, the new method of evading the provisions of the Clause. Paving the way for unfair dismissal in this way is most important. I speak as a non-lawyer, but in this House I have heard lawyers interpret Clauses in a Bill and in no case have their opinions been coincidental. This will rupture and bedevil, rather than help, industrial relations.
One must understand the position before one can help to create good industrial relations, and, as one who has lived and worked with workpeople, I assure the Minister that the Amendment, lacking a provision for reinstatement in the way I have described, and the Bill, lacking a sense of humanity, shows that


the Government are singularly devoid of the understanding that is necessary to deal with the whole issue of industrial relations.

The Solicitor-General: The hon. Member for Swansea, East (Mr. McBride) made an important contribution to the debate when he emphasised the wide importance of this provision. I was disappointed that he closed by concentrating on a critical note, suggesting that in the absence of a provision for reinstatement, this part of the Measure was of no value.

Mr. McBride: I did not use the words "of no value", though I may have an opinion about that. I thought it logical that a provision for reinstatement should be included.

The Solicitor-General: I apologise if I overstated the hon. Gentleman's criticism.

The question whether reinstatement should be in the Bill has been debated extensively both in this House and in another place. [HON. MEMBERS: "No."] It has been canvassed in one speech after another at various stages of the Bill.

Mr. Rose: Mr. Rose rose—

The Solicitor-General: The hon. Member for Manchester, Blackley (Mr. Rose) will remember that it was last canvassed on 16th March in debating several Amendments. I have the OFFICIAL REPORT with me.

Mr. Rose: No.

Mr. Heffer: Will the hon. and learned Gentleman allow me to clear this up?

The Solicitor-General: This topic was certainly referred to frequently.

Mr. Heffer: I want it clearly on the record that this whole question of unfair dismissals was never debated in this House. It may be true to say that hon. Members obliquely referred to it and tried to discuss it when speaking to other Amendments, but the guillotine prevented us from debating the matter in depth.

The Solicitor-General: I agree that we did not reach this set of Clauses in our discussion in the House—[Interruption.]—but the House must acknowledge that the amount of repetitious discussion of

earlier Clauses was the large factor in our lack of progress towards these Clauses. There would have been ample time for us to have discussed these and many other Clauses in the time available, and it is significant that the Bill was discussed from end to end twice in another place, where these Clauses were examined.
Notwithstanding that, the issues with which we are now dealing, reinstatement or not, have been raised many times in our debates. [HON. MEMBERS: "No."] They were raised on Second Reading and in the debate on the Consultative Document. Anyone who has paid a moment's notice to our debates, if they have noticed anything, will have noticed the argument about reinstatement.
In this Bill provision is made for increasing awards of compensation under Clause 102(4) if a recommendation for reinstatement is made and disregarded. Although under the Bill introduced by the Labour Government there were provisions for reinstatement to be ordered, if those orders were not complied with, the only remedy was an increase of compensation by a scale not exceeding 50 per cent. of the total compensation otherwise awardable.

Mrs. Castle: The hon. and learned Gentleman must realise how unfair he is being, trying to exonerate the Government on the reinstatement issue on the basis of a narrow Amendment rather than in the context of the Bill, when it is out of order for us to widen the discussion, apart from the fact that it is five minutes to midnight. I challenge his easy generalisations about the similarity between the two Measures and deeply regret that we did not have a chance to examine that part of his Bill dealing with reinstatement.

The Solicitor-General: I decline to accept the matter in that form. Time after time after time in this House we have drawn the attention of hon. Members to the fact that the provisions for reinstatement in the right hon. Lady's Bill did not and could not go as far as securing reinstatement. Of course, the Bill had not—

Mrs. Castle: On a point of order. As the Solicitor-General is now giving the text of an entirely different Clause which has nothing to do with the Amendment


under discussion, shall we have an opporunity tomorrow to discuss the reinstatement Clauses which are not now before us and which were not discussed in Committee?

Mr. Speaker: The right hon. Lady has asked me a hypothetical question. I shall have to see how the discussion goes.

The Solicitor-General: If the right hon. Lady does not wish me to continue the comparison on the point raised by the hon. Member for Swansea, East I will not do so. The point has been included on the record many times.
I will pass, instead, to the point made by the hon. Member for Swansea, East of the importance of these recommendations. Exactly the same point was made by the hon. and learned Member for Leicester, North-West (Mr. Greville Janner) in an extremely thoughtful speech. This was the first occasion on which tribute has been paid and acknowledgement given to the Government for the great importance they attach to the unfair dismissal provisions in the Bill. The hon. and learned Member said—and this was echoed by the hon. Member for Swansea, East—that the provisions relating to unfair dismissal were likely to be, as my right hon. Friend has stated many times, one of the most important sections of the Bill, dealing with the position of individual workers. It is encouraging to have this on the record.

Mr. McBride: The right hon and learned Gentleman is perhaps inadvertently, misleading the House. I was referring to the terms "reasonable" or "unreasonable", which is a different matter.

The Solicitor-General: I will come to discuss "reasonable" or "unreasonable" in a moment, pointing out that the formulation by reference to reasonableness and unreasonableness follows closely the words used in the right hon. Member's Bill. I am making no partisan point

about that, because it is impossible to deal with unfairness or fairness of dismissal save by using such words as "reasonable" or "unreasonable". It is important that we should be satisfied that they are the best words for the purpose.
My hon. Friend the Member for Tyne-mouth (Dame Irene Ward) raised, with characteristic skill, an important question from the point of view of her constituents about the effect of the Bill on the C. A. Parsons case. It would not be right for me to pronounce on the merits of a particular dispute, nor to say in general terms what is the justification or non-justification for the action she was discussing, but I can answer her question about the effect of the Bill on the situation she described.
The Bill cannot affect the matters she discussed if any action takes place before the Bill comes into force. Once the Bill is in force, if an employer is threatening with dismissal an employee upon the grounds that he will not join the union of the employer's dictation, the employer would be dealing with the employee unfairly and would be open to action for unfair dismissal.
The only exceptions to that situation are these. If the employer were dealing with a situation where an approved closed shop agreement had been established under the elaborate provisions of Schedule 1, it would not be unfair. The second exception is if there were an agency shop agreement the employer would not be entitled to dismiss the employee for belonging to a union of his choice, but would be entitled to do so if the employee was not paying agency shop contributions to an established agency. If it had been decided that the approved agency shop union was D.A.T.A., for example—

It being Twelve o'clock, the debate stood adjourned, pursuant to the Orders [25th January and 28th July].

Debate to be resumed this day.

PRIVATE BUSINESS

ISLE OF WIGHT COUNTY COUNCIL BILL

Lords Amendments considered.

Lords Amendments Nos. 1 to 3 agreed to.

Clause 5

CONTROL OF LARGE OVERNIGHT ASSEMBLIES IN THE OPEN

Lords Amendment: No. 4, in page 6 leave out Clause 5 and insert New Clauses 5 and 5A as follows:—

NEW CLAUSE 5

CONTROL OF LARGE OVERNIGHT ASSEMBLIES IN THE OPEN

5.—(1) Any person intending to hold an assembly to which this section applies and the occupier of any land intending to permit that land to be used as the site of such an assembly, or, if it is land adjacent to the proposed site of such an assembly, for purposes of that assembly shall give to the Council not less than four months' notice of his intention to do so.


(2) Within one month of the receipt of any such notice or of the information under subsection (4) of this section or in default of the receipt of such information within the period specified in subsection (4) of this section the Council may, after consultation with such local authorities and such statutory or other authorities as the Council think fit serve a counter-notice on the person giving such notice or information, or, as the case may be, the person required under subsection (4) of this section to give such information requiring him to comply with such reasonable terms or conditions as they think fit with respect to water supply and securing sanitary conditions, public order and public safety and for the prevention of actionable nuisance:


Provided that no term or condition relating to public order shall be imposed without the consent of the Chief Constable of the police authority


(3) Any notice given under subsection (I) of this section shall state the purpose and proposed date of commencement and duration of the assembly, the limits of the site to be occupied and the maximum number of persons which the person giving the notice expects to attend the assembly and the person giving the notice shall pay to the Council such amount in respect of any extra expense which may be incurred by any authority by reason of the assembly as the Council may reasonably require.


(4) If the Council have reason to believe that any assembly to be held in the county will be an assembly to which this section applies but no notice has been given to them thereof under subsection (1) of this section, by the person intending to hold the same or by the occupier, as the case may be, they may as soon as reasonably practicable after the intention to hold the same has come to their knowledge serve on the person intending to hold the assembly and on the occupier of any land on which it appears the assembly is to be held a notice requiring that person to give to the Council the information required by subsection (3) of this section which information shall be supplied by the person on whom the notice is served within seven days after the service of such notice and to pay to the Council the amount required under that subsection.


(5) If the site stated in a notice given in pursuance of subsection (1) of this section or information given in pursuance of subsection (4) of this section, of, in default of such information, the site that the Council have reason to believe to be the intended site shall in the reasonable opinion of the Council be too small or by reason of its situation or condition be unsuitable for the purpose of the proposed assembly or for the number expected to attend they may, without prejudice to any counter-notice under subsection (2) of this section, within one month after the receipt of a notice under subsection (1) of this section or of the information under subsection (4) thereof or, as the case may be, within one month after the expiry of the seven days referred to in subsection (4) of this section serve a counter-notice to that effect setting out in the case of unsuitability the grounds on which it is in the opinion of the Council unsuitable.


(6) If the number of persons who attend the assembly exceeds the maximum number stated in the notice or information or, in the case where there has been a default as mentioned in subsection (2) of this section, the number estimated by the Council the person giving the notice or information or required to give the information shall pay to the Council such additional amount in respect of the extra expense incurred by any authority by reason of the assembly as the Council may reasonably require.


(7) A person giving notice under subsection (1) of this section or giving or required to give information under subsection (4) thereof shall deposit with the Council by way

of security the amount required by the Council under subsections (3) and (4) of this section and shall also give to the Council a bond of reasonable amount with a sufficient surety to be approved by the Council for the payment of the amount which that person may be liable to pay to the Council in accordance with the provisions of subsection (6) of this section.


(8) Any person aggrieved by the service of a counter-notice under subsection (5) of this section or by any terms or conditions required by the Council under this section including any payments or bonds for payment under this section may within fourteen days after the service of any notice or counter-notice from the Council appeal to a court of quarter sessions of the county and on such appeal the court may by order confirm, vary or set aside any such term, condition or requirement or may impose any term, condition or requirement which the Council would have been entitled to impose by virtue of this section and may quash any such counter-notice under subsection (5) and the Council shall give effect to such order accordingly and such order shall be final.


(9).—(a) A person who holds an assembly to which this section applies without giving notice under subsection (1) of this section or information under subsection (3) thereof or after the service of a counter-notice under subsection (5) thereof shall be guilty of an offence.


(b) The occupier of land who- permits that land to be used as mentioned in subsection (1) of this section without giving notice under subsection (1) of this section or information under subsection (3) thereof or after the service of a counter-notice under subsection (5) thereof shall be guilty of an offence.


(c) any person concerned in the management of an assembly to which this section applies or the occupier of land permitting that land to be used as mentioned in subsection (1) of this section who contravenes any term, condition or requirement imposed under this section or who knew, or had reasonable cause to suspect, that such a term, condition or requirement was being contravened by some other person shall be guilty of an offence:


Provided that in proceedings for an offence under this subsection it shall be a defence for the accused to prove that he has used all due diligence to ensure compliance with the term, condition or requirement concerned.


(d) A person who commits an offence under this section shall be liable on summary conviction to a fine not exceeding £400 and on indictment to a fine not exceeding £1,000 for each day on which the offence is committed and the court convicting him may by the conviction adjudge him to pay to the Council such amount in respect of the extra expense incurred by the authorities by reason of the holding of the assembly or breach of the term or condition as the court may determine.


(e) Section 41 of the Administration of Justice Act 1970 (recovery of costs and compensation awarded by magistrates, assizes, quarter sessions, etc.) shall have effect as if the following paragraph were contained in Part I of Schedule 9 to that Act:—


"Where under section 5 of the Isle of Wight County Council Act 1971 a court adjudges a person to pay a sum of money in respect of extra expenses incurred by reason of the holding of an assembly or breach of a term or condition imposed under that section."


(10) The Council may pay to any authority the whole or such part or parts of any sums received by them under subsections (3), (4), (6), (8) and (9) of this section as they may think fit.


(11) An assembly to which this section applies is an assembly in the county in the open air at which during any period exceeding three hours during the six hours following midnight there are not less than 5,000 people present.


(12).—(a) In this section "authority" means the Council, a local authority, the police authority, the river and water authority, or any other body discharging functions in the county in pursuance of statutory powers.


(b) For the purposes of this section a person who holds an assembly includes any person who—


(i) on his own behalf or by his agent gives notice to the Council under subsection (1) of this section or information under subsection (4) of this section; or


(ii) permits land occupied by him to be used as the site of an assembly; or


(iii) charges admission to the site of the assembly; or


(iv) is entitled, as a person promoting the assembly, or as the agent, licencee or assignee of a person promoting the assembly, to the television, broadcasting, filming or recording rights of the assembly or of any performance given in the course of it; or

(v) is entitled as aforesaid to payment for goods sold or services rendered to persons attending the assembly or for the granting of rights to other persons to sell goods or services to persons attending the assembly.


(13) This section shall come into operation on 1st December 1971.

New Clause 5A

MODEL TERMS AND CONDITIONS UNDER SECTION 5

5A.—(1) The Council shall formulate a model set of terms and conditions that may be imposed under section 5 of this Act upon a person seeking to hold an assembly in the county; but the fact that a term or condition compliance with which is actually required is not in the model set or differs from any corresponding term or condition in that set shall not invalidate the term or condition, compliance with which is actually required.


(2) The Council shall make available for inspection and for sale at a reasonable price any model set of terms and conditions formulated under the preceding subsection.

Read a second time.

12.3 a.m.

Mr. Tom Driberg: I beg to move, as an Amendment to the Lords Amendment, in the proposed new Clause 5, subsection (2), line 3, after 'consultation ', insert 'and agreement'.

Mr. Speaker: I hope that it will be convenient to take with this Amendment the two other Amendments standing in the name of the hon. Gentleman so that they may be discussed at the same time:

In new Clause 5, subsection (2), line 4, leave out 'as the Council think fit', and insert:
'concerned with the intended site'.

In new Clause 5, subsection (5), in line 6, after 'attend', insert:
'the Council shall consult with the local authority in whose area the intended site is situated and subject to that local authority's agreement'.

Mr. Driberg: Yes, Mr. Speaker. It occurred to me, as I have already notified you, that this whole discussion might be out of order because the matters referred to in this Amendment could be sub judice. However, I am informed that the sub judice rule does not apply to legislation.
The reason I mention this matter is that last Friday the Clerk to the Isle of Wight County Council issued a public statement to the Press to the effect that he on behalf of the Council had applied for injunctions against three landowners whose land might possibly be used—

Mrs. Mark Woodnutt: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. The hon. Gentleman is addressing himself to a matter which is outside this Bill. This Bill will apply as amended, from 1st December this year. The writ to

which the hon. Gentleman is referring applies to a pop festival which is intended to take place this year, about which the promoter has given no notice as to site, location or anything else. I submit that this matter is outside the Bill and outside the terms of the Amendment.

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir R. Grant-Ferris): The hon. Member for Barking (Mr. Driberg) must adhere strictly to the terms of his Amendment. As long as he does that, he will remain in order.

Mr. Driberg: Yes, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I note the sensitivity displayed by the hon. Member for the Isle of Wight (Mr. Woodnutt) in referring to the heavy defeat he suffered in the other place in regard to the operation of the provision as from 1st December, which rules out this year. At the same time this reminds me of a curious letter by the clerk of the county council which I have in my hand in the course of which, in writing to a would-be possible promoter, he says:
In accordance with the council's policy of acting throughout as if their bill were law …".
That seems to me to amount to a gross contempt of Parliament. No private promoter of a Bill has the right to assume that it will go through on the nod, as, of course, did the hon. Member for the Isle of Wight, who believed that few of us would oppose it on Second Reading, and that no substantial Amendments would be made to it in another place. I remember—[Interruption.] Does the hon. Member for Totnes (Mr. Mawby) wish to intervene?

Mrs. Ray Mawby: I am sorry I intervened from a sitting position. Who was the promoter of the pop festival to whom the clerk wrote?

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. We must be careful not to stray out of order on these Amendments. They concern whether a rural district council or other councils than the county council shall have certain mandatory powers.

Mr. Driberg: Yes, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I am glad that you mentioned the rural district council because at present the relevant rural district council is totally opposed to the view of the county council which is proposing this Bill. That is a curious local situation and a curious local disagreement.
I was saying—

Mr. Denis Howell: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Would you be good enough to give a ruling on the point which my hon. Friend the Member for Barking (Mr. Driberg) raises, which is of some importance? Here we have a letter from the Clerk to the County Council of the Isle of Wight dated 12th July which explicitly says that he and his council are acting throughout as though their Bill were law. That raises serious matters. If a local authority assumes that any Bill it proposes to Parliament will automatically be passed, this makes proceedings in Parliament ludicrous. It seems to me that, in view of the point raised by my hon. Friend, it would be wise if you gave us a ruling on the propriety of the clerk to the county council acting, no doubt on behalf of the county council, in conducting all correspondence with prospective promoters in language which has been identified in the letter he sent out.

Mr. Woodnutt: Further to that point of order—

Mr. Deputy Speaker: I can help the hon. Member considerably. It is nothing whatever to do with us in the House of Commons what the clerk says or does. What I am concerned with is that everybody speaks to the terms of the Amendment which are pretty narrow.

Mr. Denis Howell: Further to that point of order. [Interruption.] Had I wanted to filibuster, I could have spoken at great length on other stages. I have chosen not to do so, but it seems to me that, even though you think it is not a matter for the Chair, Mr. Deputy Speaker, it is a matter for Parliament, in that

people presenting Bills have no right to assume that the Bills they present will be acceptable.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: I am sorry to interrupt the hon. Member, but we simply cannot discuss that at all at present. We have an Amendment before the House, and the hon. Member knows that whatever Motion is before the House, that Motion must be debated and nothing else. That is what we should be doing now. I am sorry I cannot help him further now, but I have my duty to do.

Mr. William Hamling: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Surely the purpose of a Private Bill in this case is to give a local authority powers it does not have now, and if the county council is saying it is exercising those powers on the assumption that a Bill which is not yet law is about to become law, that is surely a derogation of the principle and purpose of legislation.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: That may or may not be the case. It is nothing to do with the present Amendment, and I must, therefore, ask the hon. Member for Maldon to proceed and discuss his Amendment.

Mr. Driberg: On a point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker I am not the hon. Member for Maldon.

Mr. Michael Foot: Further to that point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Surely, whether the matter arises as a point of order or not, it arises as a question of debate, because under the third Amendment to which my hon. Friend the Member for Barking (Mr. Driberg) is speaking—that in line 6, to add the words
the Council shall consult with the local authority in whose area the intended site is situated and subject to that local authority's agreement"—
the conduct of the county council, when it is claiming to act in conformity with a Bill which has not yet been passed and which happens to be the Bill we are discussing, affects the way in which we should consider the Amendment.
I therefore submit to you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, that even though the matter might not be one that can be raised as a point of order, it is certainly one which should be raised as a matter of debate,


because the conduct of the county council enters into the question whether we should agree to the Amendment.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: I appreciate what the hon. Gentleman says. No doubt there either have been or could be opportunities when this matter could be discussed, but they cannot be said to occur upon this Amendment. I ask the hon. Member for Maldon to continue his speech.

Mr. Driberg: I am not the hon. Member for Maldon.

Mr. Woodnutt: Further to that point of order. It may assist hon. Members if I explain that when the county council wrote its letter there were no rules for controlling pop festivals and it suggested to the district councils and to the would-be promoter that they should act as though the Bill were law. The district councils and the would-be promoter agreed to this being done.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: First, I must apologise to the hon. Member for Barking (Mr. Driberg) for mistaking his constituency. If he will continue his speech I am sure that he will do his best to stay in order.

Mr. Driberg: With reference to the last point of order raised by the hon. Member for the Isle of Wight, it is nonsense to say that there were no rules which the county council could exercise in controlling pop festivals. On the contrary, in another letter the clerk of the county council remarked that it was necessary, for example, to continue to consider the following, all of which are mentioned in the Clause—the site, the layout of the site, access to the site, dates, hours, music, number of people attending, water supply, provision of toilets, as he calls them, and so on. These would all be relevant in the context of such Statutes as the Public Health Act, 1936, which the clerk himself refers to. To say that there were no rules that would enable the county council to control such a festival is absolute rubbish.
The high-handedness and arrogance of the county council in presuming to dictate to Parliament and to say that the proceedings of both Houses of Parliament can simply be disregarded and that

everything will go through on the nod at the magical touch of the hon. Member for the Isle of Wight, who has had very nasty defeats in the other House particularly, are typical of the combination of repression and evasion which has characterised the conduct of the county council throughout the various stages of the Bill. It was in March that approaches were first made to the county council to try to arrange something in the nature of a pop festival, properly controlled, of course, in accordance with the rules which exist.

Mr. Woodnutt: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. We are all being patient, but has this anything to do with the Amendment which we are supposed to be discussing?

Mr. Deputy Speaker: The hon. Member for Isle of Wight (Mr. Woodnutt) has raised a point of order as to whether the hon. Member for Barking (Mr. Driberg) is in order in what he is saying. I am not quite sure that he is. I was intending to see how the hon. Gentleman would relate what he was saying to these Amendments. If he constantly relates what he is saying to these Amendments he has a chance of staying in order.

12.15 a.m.

Mr. Driberg: When you replied to the point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker, I was about to try to intervene on another point of order to suggest that perhaps questions of order might be left to the Chair, as is customary. But evidently the hon. Member for Isle of Wight is so frightened about his little Bill that he wants to gag anyone who dares to utter a word of criticism about it.
You have said, Mr. Deputy Speaker, that the terms of the principal Amendment are narrow. That may be so. But it is very long, and I suppose that I should be in order if I read every line and commented upon it—which I am prepared to do. But I must—

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman would not be in order in going into the terms of the main Question now. He must deal with his Amendments first. Then he will have a chance to speak to the main Question.

Mr. Driberg: I am sorry, but I shall have to seek your guidance, Mr. Deputy


Speaker. I have very little experience of this kind of Measure.
Although you say that the terms of Lords Amendment No. 4 are narrow, it is a very long Amendment. Then there are Amendments to it in my name and that of my hon. Friend the Member for Erith and Crayford (Mr. Wellbeloved), whose absence—[Interruption.]—through illness will be regretted by all of us, except by cads.
It was before you assumed the Chair that Mr. Speaker said that we should take all these Amendments together—

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. Let me make the position as clear as I can. The hon. Member for Barking is moving the first of his three Amendments to the Lords Amendment. If the hon. Gentleman's Amendment is carried, then I shall put the following two. If it is not carried, they will lapse. Then I shall call Lords Amendment No. 4, which is to insert new Clause 5 and 5A. However, the hon. Gentleman must wait until it is called before he can discuss it.

Mr. Driberg: I am obliged for your guidance, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Therefore, I shall deal briefly with the first of my Amendments—[Interruption.]—although the more often that one is interrupted, the less brief one is apt to be. Those hon. Members who do not want to listen had better shut up and go back to the Smoking Room.
It seems to me that the words "and agreement" after "consultation" are the sort of words which it should be natural to add in a Measure of this kind if there were good will on both sides. In this case, we know that there is no good will on the side of the county council, which has been determined from the first to crush and prevent anything in the nature of a pop festival. That is the real motive behind the Bill, as we know from various phenomena, the behaviour of hon. Members opposite and words uttered by the hon. Member for the Isle of Wight.
The hon. Gentleman said to the Press at one point that he knew of two perfectly good sites which would be acceptable to the county council. When asked which they were, he said that he would not say and that he was not going to help "the so and so's".
The words "and agreement" may be otiose, since there is no good will on the side of the county council. Therefore, I do not press that Amendment. However, if any of my hon. Friends wishes to say anything about it, should he do so at this point or when I have finished speaking about the Amendments in general?

Mr. Deputy Speaker: The hon. Gentleman should continue his speech, move his Amendment, and then let the debate continue on the Amendment.

Mr. Driberg: Then I beg to move the Amendment, without any hope that it will have a satisfactory outcome.
My second Amendment proposes to leave out
as the Council think fit
and to insert
concerned with the intended site
Hon. Members on both sides of the House who have studied the Bill in some detail, as I am sure they all have or they would not be here, will realise at once the relevance of that substitution.
My third Amendment is important. It is to insert,
'the Council shall consult with the local authority in whose area the intended site is situated and subject to that local authority's agreement'.
This means the rural district council more particularly than the county council. The county council having shown itself obtusely hostile to the whole question of having a pop festival in the Isle of Wight, the rural district council has taken a somewhat more moderate and reasonable view, greatly to the annoyance, I am sure, of hon. Gentlemen opposite, particularly the hon. Gentleman who is in charge of the Bill.
I do not think that I need say very much more about those three Amendments. [Interruption.] I have given one warning to the claque opposite. If they go on bellowing in this inane, animal way, I shall make a much longer speech.

Mr. Michael Foot: I have not participated in these debates previously, but, having spent the last hour or two reading some of the discussions which have taken place, I am extremely sorry that I have not examined the matter before. I believe that the more one examines the debates which have led to the stage we have now


reached, the more one must acknowledge that important public issues are involved.
I speak only for myself in this debate. This is a Private Bill and, therefore, nobody is speaking officially on behalf of the Opposition on this subject, just as I gather that nobody is speaking officially on behalf of the Government, although we may have a Government inclination expressed by the hon. Gentleman who is to speak—

Mr. Stanley Orme: The Whips are on, are they not? [HON. MEMBERS: "No."] Then what are they doing here?

Mrs. Foot: It is necessary that the House should look at the matter carefully. I believe that the Amendments moved by my hon. Friend the Member for Barking (Mr. Driberg), if passed, would at least provide some protection against the desires of the county council which are bound to arouse suspicion in the mind of anyone who wishes to protect the rights of assembly in this country and, if those rights are to be altered, to ensure that they are altered in a proper fashion.

The Amendment, if passed, would mean that the county council instead of being able to decide the matter by itself, shall secure the agreement of the other local authority in the area to what it wishes to do. That seems a very moderate request. I should think that the easiest way for the hon. Gentleman who has sponsored the Bill, if that is the correct way of describing him, to deal with the matter is to say at once that he is eager to accept the Amendment. After all, the county council ought to be able to persuade the rural district council in the same area that what it is proposing is advisable in the interests of all the citizens in the Isle of Wight. It does not seem a very tall order.

We are entitled to ask for these protections, because something very strange is being attempted by the Bill. That is one reason for my interest in being here tonight, as well as for many of my hon. Friends and, I gather, for so many hon. Gentlemen opposite. The Government should agree with these Amendments because they have expressed doubts about the Bill right from the beginning. Throughout, they have suggested, rightly, that it might be better that a matter of

this kind, affecting the right of assembly, should be dealt with by a Government Bill.

I remember very well that in the last Parliament, when Private Members' Bills, as opposed to Private Bills, were being passed, hon. Members opposite, whether on divorce, abortion or many other matters, often argued that it would be better for such legislation to be introduced in a satisfactory form which did not leave matters frayed at the edges and that such Measures should be introduced by the Government. Some of us did not think that that was so necessary particularly when those Bills—whether on abortion, divorce, homosexuality, capital punishment or whatever it may have been—were subject to detailed lengthy examination in the House of Commons over many days and weeks of investigation.

If, however, that argument is accepted at all by hon. Members opposite—that Private Members' Bills of a character which dealt with public issues would better be dealt with by a Government who examined the whole legislative possibilities before hand—how much more does that apply to a Private Bill which attempts to deal with a public issue? That is what is happening in this case. The Government have acknowledged from the beginning that the Bill is one which, perhaps, they would have preferred to deal with. The Government know very well that the right of assembly affects not only the Isle of Wight, but the whole country. Therefore, it would be quite wrong for the country—I am citing the Government's view——

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I am sorry to interrupt the hon. Gentleman, but there is a tendency to stray away from the Amendments on to broad principles. I am sure he will see the point. We must keep to the Amendments.

Mrs. Foot: I should have thought, Mr. Deputy Speaker, that everything I am now saying is covered by what I said at the beginning, when I said that my hon. Friend's Amendments would introduce a modest restriction on what is proposed in the Bill—that is, the restriction that the county council, in order to get its way, would have to secure the agreement of the local authority in the area. I was arguing—and I hope, Mr. Deputy


Speaker, that you will permit me to continue to argue—that the Government, and others whom I will mention presently, have said that the right of assembly is such an important question, affecting not only the Isle of Wight, but many others in the country, that it should be dealt with, if it is to be dealt with effectively, by a Government Bill.
I do not say that that was a major argument used by the Government but it was a hint given. Unfortunately, hints are not taken by the county council in the Isle of Wight, which is precisely why we have to introduce Amendments of this kind which would bind the county council in the Isle of Wight to take account of the feelings of hon. Members.

Mr. John Gorst: Surely, in arguing about the right of assembly, the hon. Gentleman is causing confusion. Just as there is a difference between freedom, on the one hand, and licence, on the other hand, surely there is also a difference between the right of assembly on the one side, and unruly and unorganised assembly, on the other side.

Mrs. Foot: I should be happy if it were in order to argue the issue with the hon. Member, but it is not in order. I am not arguing in this case where the law should be drawn about rights of assembly. Where it should be drawn is a matter of dispute between different sides or between hon. Members, as the previous arguments have shown. What nobody can dispute, however, is that the question of the right of assembly arises in the Bill. That is not my statement but is the statement from the Government. In the earlier debates their spokesman referred to this and said that they had doubts. They said that Clause 5 was awkward in some respects. I believe that the Minister himself said it. Nobody could deny that the question of the right of assembly is influenced by the Bill.
12.30 a.m.
Therefore the argument arose—both in the Second Reading debate and in the discussions in the House of Lords which have led to the Amendments—whether the best way to deal with a change in the law affecting the right of assembly was by a Bill introduced to deal with the affairs of one county council—

Mr. Woodnutt: Perhaps I can assist the hon. Gentleman to get back to the terms of the Amendment by reminding him that the Isle of Wight County Council has been pressing for public legislation. I agree with the hon. Member that there should be public legislation, and I shall give him full support in any efforts he likes to make in future to obtain public legislation. Perhaps he can now get back to the Amendment.

Mr. Foot: The question whether I am speaking to the Amendment is not for the hon. Member to determine; it is for you, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Hon. Members can make representations to the Chair. If the hon. Member had wanted to do so he could have done, but he did not. He asked to be allowed to intervene, and then purported to say that I was out of order. In my submission that is highly disorderly conduct.
Nobody who has read the reports of the previous discussion of the Bill can say that the question of the right of assembly does not arise. Those who have spoken on the Bill in this House and in another place have argued that it would be better to have a separate Government Bill to deal with the question, and the hon. Member for the Isle of Wight—

Mrs. Deputy Speaker: I am sorry to interrupt the hon. Member again, but I must ask him to leave the development of the point about the right of assembly and come to the question whether there should be a mandatory instruction to the county council to consult local councils before coming to a decision. That is what we are talking about, and not about any larger question on the right of assembly. It is in order to mention that in passing. Many people mention things in passing which, if developed, would become out of order.

Mr. Foot: I assure you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, that I have not sought in any sense to argue the merits of the issue about the right of assembly. I have merely referred to the fact that the Bill deals with that issue, and have said, therefore, that when we discuss the Amendment and consider whether the House is proposing to place restrictions on the activities of the county council we are entitled to take into account the whole history of the matter, and the fact


that questions of major public importance are affected by the Bill.
It is not only the Government who have underlined this question, in the earlier interventions of the Minister himself; the discussions in the other place, which have resulted in the Bill's being sent back to us in this form, have dealt with it. On a number of occasions many speakers in the other place said that they thought it much more satisfactory for a matter of this kind to be dealt with by a Government Measure. All my reading of the Bill persuades me that that is correct. The fact that an Amendment of this nature has to be considered by this House is further evidence of that fact.
I should have thought that the hon. Members who are sponsoring the Bill would be only too eager to agree with the Amendments. If they say that they will not accept them we are forced to the conclusion that the county council does not believe that it can secure the agreement of the local authorities in which these activities are to take place.

Rear-Admiral Morgan-Giles: Nonsense.

Mr. Foot: Very well. If the county council can secure the agreement of the local authority, why object to these Amendments? It is very simple: if hon. Members who are sponsoring or supporting the Bill wish to assure the House that the county council, at least in this respect, will not act arrogantly, let them accept the Amendments. The county council will not then be able to apply this part of the Bill—which some of us regard with the greatest suspicion because it touches an important aspect of the right of assembly—without having to win the approval of the elected local authority in the same area.
That is not much to ask. If, on the other hand, the sponsors of the Bill reject the Amendments, they will be showing that they wish to give to this county council exorbitant powers, and exorbitant powers, as I say, dealing with matters which the Government themselves say would be better dealt with in a Government Bill.
The best service that the sponsors can do is to accept the Amendments straight away, though probably the best service

that the House of Commons could do for the rights of free assembly in this country is to throw the Bill out altogether.

Mr. Woodnutt: The promoters of the Bill cannot possibly accept these Amendments. They are far too loosely worded. In effect, the county council could do nothing. Under the terms of the Bill as it stands, the county council has to consult. That is acceptable. But under the Amendments it would have to obtain the agreement of all local authorities concerned with an intended site.
The whole of the Isle of Wight is concerned with any intended site. The whole island is only 95,000 acres. We have two borough councils, three urban district councils, one rural district council, a joint Isle of Wight water and river board, a policy authority. All are concerned. Yet hon. Members opposite are suggesting that, before taking effective action on a tight timetable, the county council must consult all those authorities and obtain their agreement. It is not practicable in the timetable.
It has been suggested that there is a difference of opinion between the councils in the Isle of Wight. There is not. The district councils on the island approve this Clause as it stands. The Isle of Wight County Council represents the whole of the island—all the 105,000 souls living there—and the maximum represented by any one district council is 20,000. Clearly, this is a function of the Isle of Wight County Council.
The matters about which local authorities would wish to impose conditions are mainly functions which concern the county council, not the district councils. I have in mind the ambulance service, for instance, seeing that there is proper space for ambulances and proper access roads for them to get in and out quickly. That is a function of the county council. The fire service is a function of the county council. All the access roads and road generally in the whole of the rural districts of Ventnor, and public health in its broadest sense are functions of the county council.

Mr. Denis Howell: All the matters which the hon. Gentleman has raised, which are of importance, are matters with which the county council already has powers to deal.

Mr. Woodnutt: With respect, if the hon. Gentleman had attended the previous debates, he would understand what I am talking about. The hon. Member for Barking (Mr. Driberg), who made similar comments a few minutes ago, must remember the Second Reading debate. I pointed out then that although the councils have the right to lay down rules for public health—sanitation, the number of lavatories, and so on—in the event of promoters not abiding by those regulations the fine is a derisory £10. Will that stop a promoter who is mainly in it for the money he can make out of 250,000 people? The object of the Bill is to see that the powers are given teeth.
It is ridiculous to suggest that the Isle of Wight could accept the Amendment, for the reasons I have given. But there is another reason that is even more valid. We have been seeing the Bill through the House since. March, and hon. Members opposite have done everything to hold it up and stop it reaching the Statute Book.

Mr. Norman Tebbit: With the greatest respect to my hon. Friend, not all hon. Members opposite have done anything to hold up the Bill. In the past they have not bothered to turn up, because they have not had any interest in it. They only turn up now, at the last minute, to try to muck up a Bill which has the overwhelming support of the House and the people of the Isle of Wight. Hon. Members opposite are a bunch of wreckers.

Mr. Woodnutt: I thank my hon. Friend for his helpful intervention. It reminds me that many hon. Members opposite have supported us throughout, and I am pleased to see some of them here tonight.
This is another exercise to try to delay the Bill, to send it back to another place so that it will not reach the Statute Book. We shall oppose the Amendment and see that the Bill does reach the Statute Book.

Mr. Bernard Conlan: I was rather surprised to hear what was said about hon. Members on this side opposing the Bill, although the hon. Member for Isle of Wight (Mr. Woodnutt) rectified that belatedly. Many of us have supported it throughout, and have voted in the Lobbies in support of it.
I am also surprised, however, that the hon. Gentleman is fiercely opposing the Amendments, which I believe to be reasonable. I emphasise that I accept the general principles of the Bill. I support the Bill. But when the Isle of Wight County Council is asking for these powers, presumably it is asking for them with the general agreement of the local authorities within the island, and acting as a sort of umbrella, a kind of watershed, for the views and desires of the local authorities. If my interpretation is correct, I should have thought that the county council would have been pleased and enthusiastic about consulting the various local authorities within the island, because although it is the overall authority for the island the problems of nuisance that can arise from such gatherings as pop festivals are really for the local authority. The local authority is the authority most directly and vitally concerned with the annoyance that can arise from the gathering of a large number of people, and it might be asked to agree that a pop festival or any other event should occur within its area. Although I support the Bill, its general intentions and purposes, I think it might have been wiser if the sponsors could have accepted these reasonable Amendments and I cannot support them in their opposition to them.

12.45 a.m.

Mr. Denis Howell: When I intervened earlier, I inferred that all the things which the hon. Member for the Isle of Wight (Mr. Woodnutt) was speaking of—questions of public health, access and so on—could be dealt with under present legislation, particularly the Public Health Acts, and it is interesting to recall that he denounced me for not having been here at earlier stages. He is entitled to do so, but it is an odd thing if an hon. Member who exercises his right to speak in this Chamber is to be denounced like that. It does not help his case. The hon. Gentleman—and I have read the reports of the earlier stages—has never given the House any examples of why these powers are necessary and why the present legislation cannot be exercised to deal with the matters he referred to.
It may surprise the hon. Gentleman to know that I have a great deal of sympathy for the point he has taken up. But I hold the view, along with the Home


Office, that this is not the way in which these matters should be dealt with. I will give a few examples which lead me to that conclusion. [HON. MEMBERS: "Get on with it."] Like my hon. Friend the Member for Ebbw Vale (Mr. Michael Foot) I might be obliged, by interventions from hon. Members who may have been here at earlier stages but have no intention of making constructive contributions, to take a little longer than I intended. That would be a pity because this is not a filibuster. I am on a point of major concern. It is interesting to note the behaviour of hon. Members opposite who do not want the arguments dealt with on their merits.
There are major questions of public concern in public assemblies of all sorts at present. The question therefore is whether one local authority should have power to determine this matter after consultation with other local authorities but not in agreement with them, and it is a question of major importance. Such a local authority should not be able so to determine on the basis of this Bill.
There is great concern in the country at the behaviour of football crowds. I go so far as to say that such behaviour is causing greater public disorder and concern—I regret to have to say this—than the behaviour at pop festivals on the Isle of Wight. Such behaviour is as much a matter of concern if one lives in Halifax, after last Saturday's scenes, for example.

Mr. Kenneth Lewis: It is the fault of the referees.

Mr. Howell: We can deal with this seriously. This is a serious matter, although I do not expect that to be understood in Rutland and Stamford.
I will be guided by you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, but I should like to ask what the Government intend to do about the whole subject of crowd control at public gatherings.

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Robert Grant-Ferris): That question is out of order. The hon. Member is taxing me rather hard. Hon. Members on my right would do much better and dispatch the business much more quickly if they were quieter. I hope that hon. Members will keep to the terms of the Amendments.

Mr. Howell: I half expected that Ruling, Mr. Deputy Speaker, which was why I invited you intervene at that point.
In the absence of a proper guarantee about the major questions which I want to raise, including what I describe as the democratic point, we are entitled to say that local authorities on the island should have more than just the right to be consulted. If the borough, rural district, or parish council of the area where the festival is to be held disagrees with the county council, there should be some means to determine who is right. The hon. Member for the Isle of Wight says that in every such case the will of the county council will prevail. He seems quite unaware of the need to give conclusive justification for that. If the consultation between the county council and the other authority concerned breaks down, how is the disagreement to be resolved? What is the justification for the will of the county council prevailing in such an eventuality?
The case has not been made out and. if only to get the explanation about what will happen in such an eventuality, my hon. Friend the Member for Barking (Mr. Driberg) was fully justified in moving the Amendment.

The Minister of State, Home Office (Mr. Richard Sharples): It may assist the House if I intervene briefly at this stage.
The House will recall that the principles of the Bill, including those of Clause 5, were decided by the House on Second Reading. The normal practice is that the Government express their views in the terms of a report which is considered by the Select Committee examining the Bill. The points which we made were examined by the Select Committee, and many of the reservations which we expressed were met.
We made no observations on the lines of these Amendments, and they must be matters for the House to settle this evening. I may express my own views, but the Government have not expressed a view about these Amendments.

Mr. Hamling: I had not intended to take part in these proceedings until I heard the rather ill-bred interventions in the speech of my hon. Friend the


Member for Barking (Mr. Driberg) and the ill temper with which the hon. Member for the Isle of Wight (Mr. Woodnutt) replied to the comments on the Amendments. It is taxing the patience of the House to talk of tremendous opposition to the Bill when only two of my hon. Friends voted against it on Second Reading or for the hon. Member for the Isle of Wight to speak of my hon. Friends making very long speeches opposing the Bill when there has, in fact, been very little opposition to it.
It is rather odd for the Minister to say that the Government have no view on the Bill—

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. It is not perhaps for me to say this, but the Minister did not say that the Government have no view on the Bill. He was talking about the Amendment, which is what the hon. Member should be talking about.

Mr. Hamling: The Minister said that the Government have no view on the Amendment and that the House must make up its mind. Yet we see the serried ranks of Lobby fodder below the Gangway, who have come here not to decide on the merits of the Amendment but to keep a House so that the Government do not lose the Bill. We know exactly what goes on about Private Bills.

Mr. Angus Maude: To save a great deal of time—because the hon. Member is obviously prepared to devote a great deal of time to it—may I ask him to take it from us that we are not Lobby fodder and that there are no Whips? Each of us has a view about the Bill, and we thought it worth while to come here to support that view.

Mr. Hamling: I was talking about hon. Members below the Gangway.

Mrs. Mawby: As an hon Member below the Gangway, may I assure the hon. Member that there are no Whips? We have attended every sitting on the Bill in the Chamber, unlike the hon. Member. He misquoted the Minister, who in fact said that points had been made by the Government and considered by the Select Committee. We are dis-

cussing Lords Amendments. I hope that at least the hon. Member will withdraw his allegation that the Government have made certain statements—which are in fact contrary to what they have said.

Mr. Hamling: If hon. Members below the Gangway had earlier behaved a little better—[HON. MEMBERS: "Withdraw."] I will withdraw nothing I have said until I am directed by the Chair to do so. It is about time that Government supporters realised that we on these benches are as much entitled as anyone to discuss Private Bills and to make speeches without ill-tempered accusations from the hon. Member for the Isle of Wight and interruptions from below the Gangway. My hon. Friend the Member for Barking is as much entitled as anyone to discuss a Private Bill. [HON. MEMBERS: "Get on with it."] I will take as long as I like—

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Member should be a little careful about the way in which he makes his speech. It is in order to say of hon. Members opposite that they are not behaving as they should, but to develop a speech almost exclusively along those lines is an abuse of the procedure of the House. The hon. Member would do well to address himself to the Amendment; and hon. Members on the other side of the House should bear in mind that the quieter they are, the sooner we shall get the business through.

1.0 a.m.

Mr. Hamling: I hope that hon. Members will take the point, that the quieter they are the sooner they will get their Bill. So long as we have no interruptions—

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: Order. I think that the hon. Gentleman, when he sees that the House is quiet, ought to address himself to the Amendment.

Mr. Hamling: My hon. Friend has raised important arguments to which I wish to direct my attention. The third Amendment talks about the local authority in whose area the even is to be held. It surprised me that when the hon. Member for Isle of Wight replied to the Amendment he talked of "all authorities". Surely in an area where an event is to be held there is only one local


authority or at the most a couple of parish councils and perhaps a rural district council. Surely the area to be covered by an event is not so large that it is concerned with all local authorities on the Island as well as the county council?
This seems to be a reasonable Amendment, and I cannot understand why the promoters seem so determined to reject the hand of agreement held out across the Floor of the House. I intervened to discover why they take this attitude and object to this modest suggestion. Only two reasons have been given as to why the Amendment should not be accepted. First, the hon. Gentleman talked about "local authorities" instead of "the local authority". The second argument was that these powers were needed because existing ones were inadequate. That argument relates not to the Amendment but to the whole of the Bill, therefore, we have only had one argument against the Amendment.
When local authorities are asking the House to give specific powers they should be as careful as possible to meet all possible objections. The House is expected to give time for such Bills and to grant them expedition. The Government are expected to give not only time but some facilites so that they are passed. There is an obligation upon local authorities—to meet objections—without the ill-temper shown earlier.
I cannot see how the Amendment would make any difference to the purposes of the Bill. The promoters would still be left with their powers and could do what they want to do. There would simply be the modest addition asking the county council to consult the local authority.

Mrs. Woodnutt: The hon. Gentleman is, I am sure unintentionally, misleading the House. This obligation on the part of the county council to consult the other authorities is already in the Bill.

Mrs. Handing: If the hon. Gentleman is saying that they are prepared to consult the local authority—

Mrs. Woodnutt: They must consult.

Mrs. Handing: —what objection does he have to my hon. Friend's Amendment? He cannot have it both ways. He cannot say the Amendment is wrong because it

would require consultation and at the same time say that consultation must take place under the Bill. [Interruption.] Surely the purpose of consultation is to get agreement.
If the promoters say the Amendment is badly drafted, they have a simple remedy—to draft their own Amendment. It is normal, particularly in Committee, for the Government to agree with the principle of an Amendment, particularly one tabled by the Opposition who do not have the services of well-paid parliamentary draftsmen at their disposal, but reject it on the understanding that they will introduce a better worded Amendment later.
My hon. Friend has made a reasonable proposition, although I will not be in the Lobby later to vote for it—[HON. MEMBERS: "Oh! "]—because there is agreement between the two Front Benches on this matter. [HON. MEMBERS: "No."] Yes, there is.

Mrs. Sharples: I do not know of any such agreement.

Mr. Hamling: I appreciate that, and I have not consulted the Minister about it. However, it is well known in the Whips Office that Opposition Whips do not vote in these matters. I will not be voting in the Division for that reason. Whether or not one votes in a Division, there is no reason why the House should not have a better explanation than it has received. Having heard the opening part of the debate, I was moved to intervene because I thought the House was being treated with less consideration than it was entitled to receive, and that my hon. Friend's arguments were entitled to a better reply.

Mrs. Gordon A. T. Bagier: The Government's attitude to the Amendments has been that they had not a view—

Mrs. Sharples: The position is that the Government express their view on all Private Member's Bills in a report. We did not express a requirement for Amendments of this kind.

Mrs. Bagier: I understood the hon. Gentleman to say previously that new Clause 5 was satisfactory to the Government but that the Amendment was not sufficiently strongly worded for him to express a view. I have supported the Bill


through all its stages, and I do not see what the difficulty is in seeking agreement.
Suppose the Isle of Wight County Council wished to have a pop festival and imposed that festival on a certain rural district council. Would not the rural district council's agreement have to be sought? This might be taken as a blueprint and possibly as a widening of the powers of other county councils. The West Riding County Council and the Northumberland County Council are very large authorities which may not know the local aspects of an urban or rural district council. I ask the hon. Member for Isle of Wight to think again and provide for agreement to be sought as well as for consultation.

Amendment to the proposed Lords Amendment negatived.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Lords Amendment No. 4. Mr. Woodnutt?

Mr. Driberg: On a point of order. Could you possibly put the Question on the two other Amendments, Mr. Deputy Speaker?

Mr. Deputy Speaker: No, I am afraid I cannot take them for a Division. If the first Amendment had been carried, I would have put them because they are consequential, but I do not propose to put them now.

Mr. Driberg: With great respect, are they strictly consequential? They seem to deal with somewhat different points.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: They are not selected. What I meant to say was that they were not selected for Division. Mr. Speaker was quite definite about that.

Mr. Michael Foot: Further to that point of order. Did not Mr. Speaker when he was in the Chair invite my hon. Friend to discuss the second and third Amendments with the first Amendment? I thought that was what he said. I may have misheard it. Therefore, I thought it might follow that they could be put to the vote.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: That is a perfectly reasonable supposition. I understand that Mr. Speaker said that the three Amendments could be discussed together, and that it would be possible to divide

upon the first. I understood him to say that the second and third Amendments were not selected for a Division.

1.15 a.m.

Mr. Driberg: Further to that point of order. With the greatest possible respect, Mr. Speaker said that the three Amendments could be discussed together. It is common practice for several Amendments to be discussed together, but it is for the mover of them to have the right to divide or not to divide on each separately. I had intended to divide on the third one if it were so put.

Mr. Maude: Further to that point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Since it is clear that the Opposition do not intend to divide because they are not here, does it really matter? Would it not save time if we did not have Divisions?

Mr. Driberg: Further to that point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Would you disregard that intervention as irrelevant, ungallant and impertinent and give a Ruling on a matter on which Mr. Speaker did not rule?

Mr. Deputy Speaker: I should like to help the hon. Gentleman if I can. I am bound by the rules of order. What I would like to do is to take back the first Question and allow him a Division if he wants it, but I cannot do that, having dealt with the Question. The hon. Gentleman must accept that I cannot assist him. I am afraid that our business must now continue because the next two Amendments are not selected by Mr. Speaker for Divisions, and nothing can be done about forcing one.

Mr. Driberg: We shall have to wait until the day after tomorrow to see in HANSARD whether Mr. Speaker did say what I did not hear him say, that separate Divisions would not be allowed. [Interruption.] I hear one of the usual catcalls from the other side. I am sorry to delay you in this way, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I wanted to divide on the third Amendment, not on the first and second. Mr. Speaker said nothing about not selecting them.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: That is the situation as it is now. I am afraid that we cannot go back on the matter and I do now so rule. The hon. Gentleman


knows that the Chair is indivisible, and I rule that the situation is as I have said. We must now pass to Amendment No. 4.

Mr. Woodnutt: I beg to move, That the House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment.

Mr. Driberg: I am surprised that the hon. Member for the Isle of Wight (Mr. Woodnutt) has not said anything in support of his Motion. He has, I take it, exhausted his right to speak except by leave of the House. It is odd that he has not told us why he has felt obliged, or why the county council has felt obliged, to concede so many points to the strong representations made to it in another place.
There are a number of differences—some minor, some major—between the new Clause and the original Clause. However, there are still a number of extremely objectionable features in Clause 5 which some of us would not wish to accept without severe questioning. One difference occurs at the end of subsection (2) where two lines are added on the matter of public order:
Provided that no term or condition relating to public order shall be imposed without the consent of the Chief Constable of the police authority.
I should think so indeed! It is arrogant of the county council in the first instance to have tried to take over from the chief constable powers relating to public order. This is characteristic of the way in which this very badly drafted Bill has been handled throughout. This must be particularly distasteful to the hon. Member for the Isle of Wight since it was the chief constable who paid a glowing tribute to the behaviour of most of the young people who attended last year's pop festival. Their conduct in general was good. None the less, that did not lessen the prejudice of the hon. Member for the Isle of Wight and the county council against their relatively innocent enjoyment. [Interruption.] Do hon. Members wish to interrupt or do they just want to barrack? They should keep quiet.

Mrs. Mawby: The hon. Member trailed his coat then. Surely he will recollect that as a result of last year's pop festival, a lot of young people were misrepresented, that the company which operated

it went into liquidation and that some problems arose.

Mr. Driberg: I do not quite see how that is relevant to the point I was making. I was referring to the chief constable and was reminding the House that he paid tribute, as did the police generally, to the good conduct and behaviour of the majority of the young people. Of course, there were some bad hats among them—I am not talking about the promoters, or anything to do with them—but the chief constable paid that tribute which must be distasteful to the hon. Member for the Isle of Wight.
We move to subsection (3). I am not sure that it is fair to expect the promoters to pay the council an excessive amount in advance, a deposit which might be enormous, because, although it says
such amount … as the council may reasonably require
it is obvious that the council's ideas of how much money it can get out of the promoters or organisers of a pop festival is fairly inflated, since later in the Clause, in both old and new versions, it is empowered to impose fines not exceeding £400, and on indictment not exceeding £1,000, for each day on which an offence is committed.
The offence may be any breach, however tiny or technical, of the arduous and rigorous conditions laid down by the county council. If it says that there must be a mile of urinals and there is a mile minus a furlong or minus half a furlong, there is a £1,000 a day fine. This is a ridiculous idea. One would like to know how much the county council may reasonably require under subsection (3). Hon. Members can read it for themselves. I take it they can read. [Interruption.]

Sir Harry Legge-Bourke: I hope we shall understand it better than the hon. Member seems to.

Mr. Driberg: I am sure the hon. and gallant Gentleman will, but he should always make his interventions standing and not from a sitting position.
There are a number of other provisions, some of which are reasonable and unexceptionable, but some of which are going much too far in interfering with the ordinary rights of assembly and the ordinary rights of people assembled


for public occasions in the open or for some particular purpose, political, religious or pop festival or anything else. The whole of this Bill and of this Clause is extremely dangerous in its newer form, which alters very little the old form.
It is interesting that the county council, for all its intransigence, has felt obliged to agree with some of the weighty criticisms made by members of another place. The legal members there were particularly appalled, one gathers, by the disgraceful drafting of this Bill. They said it was, legally, one of the worst pieces of drafting they had ever seen, which was not surprising.
I have already referred to the amount of the fine. It is extraordinary that a county council can set up laws for itself, creating new offences and imposing such enormously drastic and heavy fines as £1,000 a day for each day on which some trivial infringement of regulations occurs. Altogether the Clause in its original form and as redrafted contains almost everything to which some of us objected on Second Reading. I particularly resent the sneers which have been directed from the other side at the fact that only a few of us took part in the debate on Second Reading or in other debates. There were rather more on Report, as it happened. The size of a minority in any argument is not necessarily the only test of its merit.

Mr. Gorst: There has not been much quality, either.

Mr. Driberg: That is a matter of opinion. The hon. Gentleman's opinion is naturally echoed by a few barks from his friends. [An HON. MEMBER: "Where are the hon. Gentleman's Friends?"] The exquisite quality of the wit emanating from the other side enables me to say "tu quoque". The hon. Gentleman does not have to stay. He can go straight back to the Smoking Room and enjoy himself. He will not be bored there, except by the sound of his own dreary voice.

Mr. Tebbit: If I wanted to be bored by a dreary voice, it is clear why I came into the Chamber.

Mr. Driberg: Goodness, the wit that is being displayed! It is almost overwhelming; it is so scintillating. I fear I shall have to disappoint you, Mr.

Speaker, and the House, in that I cannot go on giving way to interventions if they cannot do better than that. I do not want either to bore or to detain the House unduly. I shall therefore end this brief speech by saying that the essence of the Bill and of this Clause, the most important Clause in the Bill, is that there are a number of young people from all over Europe as well as from all over Britain who were hoping, and who may yet just have the chance, to come to the Isle of Wight this year for another festival, to enjoy themselves in wonderful, beautiful, rustic surroundings, to enjoy the sort of music that they happen to like best and which they are entitled to like. The object of the Bill and of the county council is to frustrate that wish of theirs and to crush in the most ruthless and unscrupulous way, any attempt to meet it; that is the way in which the Bill has been presented and handled by the county council throughout.

Mr. Charles Curran: I suggest to the hon. Member for Barking (Mr. Driberg) that his fears both about the Clause and about the Bill in general are misconceived. He thinks, no doubt honestly, that behind the Bill is some kind of plot against the right of public assembly. Others of his colleagues have taken that same line as though the Bill were the tip of an iceberg which is intended to interfere with the right of public assembly. I am a supporter of the Bill, but I assure the hon. Gentleman that I am not supporting it out of any desire to limit or truncate the right of public assembly.
1.30 a.m.
I support the Bill for a quite different reason. I recognise—I invite the hon. Gentleman to agree with me—that the right of public assembly, like every other right, must be exercised with due regard to the rights of others. The right of public essembly must be exercised with due regard to the rights on non-assemblers. I am sure that we are all in favour of free speech. I am equally sure that we all agree that the right of free speech, like the right of assembly, must be exercised with due regard to the rights of others. The hon. Gentleman will remember, no doubt, that it was laid down not by any supporter of Tory reaction but by Justice Wendell Holmes that the right of free


speech does not confer upon someone the right to cry "Fire" in a crowded theatre.
The Bill is promoted not to interfere with the right of assembly. It is promoted to see that if that right is exercised in the Isle of Wight it is exercised with due regard to those who live in the Isle of Wight—

Mr. Michael Foot: Even admitting all that the hon. Gentleman says about the rights of non-assemblers, does he not agree that it would be better if a Bill dealing with the right of assembly were drafted and presented to the House by the Government? There may be a case even for a Private Member's Bill dealing with it, but for a Private Bill to deal with matters of that nature is an innovation, and a dangerous one.

Mrs. Curran: That may be true. I am prepared to accept that the hon. Gentleman's opinion is that this is a Bill which deals with a matter that should be dealt with by the Government. The hon. Gentleman is entitled to his point of view. But it is not necessarily an argument against the Bill to say that the Bill is all right but there is a better one laid up in heaven or in some office in Whitehall. We are here to debate this Bill and to decide whether we accept it. We must look at the Bill and see whether it satisfies us.

Mrs. Speaker: Order. I thought that we were debating Lords Amendment No. 4, not the Bill.

Mr. Curran: Perhaps I was drawn into a cul-de-sac by the hon. Member for Ebbw Vale (Mr. Michael Foot). I shall back out of it and resume my remarks, which are directed to the Clause which the hon. Member for Barking criticised.
The hon. Gentleman's fear that the Bill is a threat to the right of assembly is unfounded. His other fear that the Bill is a threat to the right of youth to get together is equally unfounded. The hon. Gentleman is—

Mr. Driberg: I cannot remember whether the hon. Gentleman heard the beginning of the Second Reading debate. If he did, he will remember that when I said that the effect of the Bill would be to wipe out pop festivals altogether, in the Isle of Wight, at any rate, there was a tremendous roar of applause from hon.

Members about him, indicating that that was precisely what they wanted.

Mr. Curran: I heard the hon. Gentleman speak. If there was a roar of applause, I did not join it. I am not hostile to any right of youth to get together for a festival. All I say about that right is that it must be exercised with due regard to the rights of others. It may be that the Isle of Wight, being a small place, is not suitable for youth festivals. No one is better fitted to judge that than the elected authority for the Isle of Wight. The county council is as competent to form a judgment about that as I am, or as the hon. Gentleman is. If it comes to the conclusion, as it does, that the Isle of Wight is not a suitable place for bringing together large numbers of young people, I think that that opinion must be respected. What it is arguing, if I understand it aright, is not that it wishes to veto youth assemblies on the island, but that, if they take place, they must take place with due regard to the rights of the people who live there. Does the hon. Gentleman object to that? Does he think that is an unreasonable claim?

Mr. Driberg: Not in the least, since the hon. Gentleman challenges me. But it was possible to see that it was carried out by agreement under the existing legislation without this draconian Bill.

Mr. Curran: Surely that is the whole point of the discussion. The hon. Gentleman says that it is possible to carry it out by agreement. That has not been possible. That is why the Bill has been introduced. There is no desire among the supporters of the Bill to forbid the right of young people to enjoy themselves. There are plenty of places in these islands where they can do it. I agree that it is not as easy to do it here as in America. But we are not talking about Woodstock; we are talking about the Isle of Wight. If youth want to get together in the fashion that was made popular at Woodstock and is now being mimicked in this country—so much of the youth movement of this country is a kind of organised mimickry of what goes on in America—I ask them to remember that the Americans have more space in which to do it than we have here.
If somebody wants to stage and mimic Woodstock in this country, will they do it on Salisbury Plain or on Dartmoor?


There are open spaces, even in these islands. [An HON. MEMBER: "Barking."] I do not know whether the hon. Member for Barking puts forward Barking as a suitable place for a British Woodstock. [An HON. MEMBER: "Ebbw Vale."] The attractions of Ebbw Vale may not be particularly magnetic to youth.
I am not supporting any attempt to suppress youth gatherings. I have no objection if young people want to get together to enjoy themselves with electric guitars and open-air copulation. I have nothing against either of those pursuits, so long as I am not required to listen to the one nor to look at the other. In saying that I am sure that I speak for the people who live in the Isle of Wight. This is a perfectly legitimate and reasonable request to make. The hon. Gentleman may have an enthusiasm for electric guitars and open-air copulation—he is entitled to it—but let him recognise that there are people who do not share his tastes and that their judgment on these matters is as good as his own. I invite him, therefore, on the basis of his own argument, to support the Bill.

Mrs. Denis Howell: There might be some validity in the view expressed by the hon Member for Uxbridge (Mr. Curran) were it not for the fact that Ministers in charge of various aspects of Government policy relating to these matters not only permit but actively encourage the holding of these large-scale assemblies in Hyde Park in the centre of our capital city. They do not need Measures like this to regulate the situation.

Mrs. Woodnutt: Not for four nights.

Mr. Howell: Perhaps not for four nights, but the time scale is not involved in the Bill. The Clause is not about prohibition or of reasonable regulation of the crowd—

Mrs. Martin Maddan: Mrs. Martin Maddan (Hove) rose—

Mr. Howell: I will not give way, because I am trying to make what I regard as a substantial and serious point.
The hon. Member for Uxbridge gave the game away when he said, "If the Isle of Wight wishes to determine, as

it does". The phrase he used was "as it does". In other words, he was saying that the Isle of Wight had no intention of applying the criteria laid down in the Bill to any future pop festival. I hope that I am wrong about that. I hope that the hon. Member for the Isle of Wight (Mr. Woodnutt) will tell us tonight that if a pop festival were adequately and properly regulated it would not be exceptionable to the Isle of Wight.

Mrs. Woodnutt: I have said this repeatedly in all stages of these debates and I do not think I need repeat it.

Mrs. Howell: I am grateful to the hon. Member for doing so, if only for my education in this matter.
Having listened to hon. Members on the Government benches, it would be a reasonable reaction for people to think that most hon. Members were completely opposed to assemblies of young people. [HON. MEMBERS: "Nonsense."] That is the impression that one has in coming fresh to these matters and listening. Clearly, large numbers of hon. Members opposite are opposed to the principle of young people assembling for the purpose of enjoying themselves. [HON. MEMBERS: "Nonsense."] If that is not the case, all one can say is that they have a very odd way of showing their support for such a proposition. If hon. Members opposite sit there making such interjections and comments, they cannot complain if one draws that conclusion.

Mrs. Gorst: If the hon. Member had been present on Second Reading, he would have heard the arguments which have convinced those hon. Members on this side who have given their support. As, clearly, he neither attended the debate nor has read the report of it, he obviously draws the wrong impression.

Mr. Howell: That is the sort of impertinent interruption which convinces me that I was wrong to give way to the hon. Member. I have read again this evening, for the second time, the whole of the Second Reading debate, so I hope that the hon. Member will take it from me that I have read in the cold light of dawn as well as the cold light of this


evening what was said on Second Reading. I do not detract from the impression I have had sitting in the Chamber looking at and listening to the behaviour of hon. Members opposite.
My point of substance, which is of considerable importance at present, is the whole question of regulating large assemblies. I have considerable sympathy with what the Isle of Wight and the hon. Member for that constituency are trying to do, but I take the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Ebbw Vale (Mr. Michael Foot), which was the Government's point at an earlier stage—I hope that they have not departed from it—that this is a matter of such growing importance that it should not be left to a piece of private legislation affecting one county in isolation from everybody else.

New Clause 5 not only attempts to regulate the assembly of crowds in a way which I regard as very undesirable but gives to the local authority the right to estimate the numbers of people so assembled. I do not know how the local authority would carry out the right which subsection (6) gives. It would be extremely difficult to do it. The more that the hon. Member for the Isle of Wight tells us that the Isle of Wight is a very small island with a small population and not used to having these large assemblies, the more impossible it will be for the local authority, with no experience of doing so, to assess the total numbers of people which subsection (6) requires.

Why should the House of Commons—I believe it to be rather dangerous—seek to legislate for the control of a crowd of pop music fans in one county in isolation from all the other problems of large-scale assembly which at present face us?

1.45 a.m.

Only a short time ago we had people behaving in a way that the hon. Member finds exceptionable—and probably I would, too—and causing a number of deaths. Those deaths were caused because of the behaviour of a much smaller crowd than the crowds at the Isle of Wight, and in a much more confined space, in Glasgow. That was only one of three or four incidents affecting public safety. We now have a committee of inquiry, under Lord

Wheatley, looking into that incident. Because they were so concerned about the problem of public safety that arose the Government asked one of their advisers—Mr. Walter Winterbottom—to visit almost every football ground to consult all the owners of those grounds. But when Mr. Winterbottom went round to look into these questions he discovered that he had no powers—apart from the powers of persuasion—to impose any standards upon the people who were attracting football crowds in much more emotional situations than operated in the Isle of Wight.

In an earlier interjection, which was then rightly ruled out of order but is valid now, I mentioned that a large number of football supporters attending a match at Halifax gave greater offence to the people of that town than anything that the pop crowd did on the Isle of Wight. All the people in question seem to have assembled for the deliberate purpose of breaking the law—if we are to take the Press accounts at their face value. There have been other occurrences, notably at the ground of Newcastle United. Again, it was quite impossible to get ambulances, fire engines and police forces there to deal with the extremely ugly situation that occurred in a match that the club was playing with Glasgow Rangers only two or three years ago.

Let us move away from the football scene and look at even larger assemblies of people, such as those which congregate at Silverstone, for the motor racing, which attracts crowds much greater than the pop festival crowds—crowds numbering about 250,000—in an area much smaller than that of the Isle of Wight. No powers of regulation exist, other than the normal public health powers, because the racing takes place on private property, and the powers of the police and public authorities to regulate what goes on on private property are much more limited than their general powers in respect of public order and public health in open spaces.

In such places as motor racing circuits there are inadequate sanitation facilities, and inadequate public safety facilities. Although motor racing is well regulated by the R.A.C., there is a direct hazard to public safety merely by the nature of the events that take place and the speed of the cars.

I could illustrate my point with other examples, but I think that I have said enough—[Interruption.] I am aware that nothing that I say will make any impression on hon. Members opposite; they are not interested in the merits of the argument. But I think that the Minister of State will be interested in the merits of the argument, for I know from my previous Ministerial experience in these matters that not a week passes but he has to deal with some event of public disorder of one kind or another arising out of our sporting preoccupations. It is very rare, on the other hand, that we have to deal with public disorder arising out of what one might term, in a loose sense, cultural pursuits, which I believe pop festivals to be in their own way. [Laughter.] Hon. Members may laugh at that, but that is how I look at it, and, having read the debate in the other place, I am interested to know many of their lordships drew that conclusion. I notice that it was said by a member on the bishops' bench that there was a deep spiritual purpose on the part of many of the people who assembled. That is not something which one should lightly discount.

On the one hand, we must not transgress the power of public assembly, a power which we seek to cherish and which the House should never lightly disregard. On the other hand, there is the need to regulate large assemblies. Balancing those two matters, one comes again to the inescapable conclusion that the Government's advice at an earlier stage in these proceedings is right, that this is a matter for the Government and not for any one local authority to deal with by a Private Bill. Even though we pass the Bill tonight, as undoubtedly we shall, in view of the forces assembled on the benches opposite—[An HON. MEMBER: "Hear, hear."]—and the fact that many, like the hon. Member who said "Hear, hear", have no wish to deal with the merits of the case, we shall have to come back to this subject.

Are we to come back to it local authority by local authority? Are the Halifaxes, the Manchesters, the Glasgows, the Newcastles to bring in their own Bills to regulate the behaviour of their own large assemblies on other occasions? Such a procedure only has to

be stated to be seen to be absurd by anyone who understands the situation Plainly, this is a matter for regulation by the Government. I should support the Minister of State in any such proposal. I should support the people of the Isle of Wight, who say that they ought not to have large numbers of people suddenly descending upon them in an unregulated manner. The regulation of these matters, of public safety and public health, should apply to all large assemblies on all occasions. For that reason, in my judgment, the Bill ought not to go forward. It should be withdrawn so that the Government may introduce their own legislation, which—I speak only for myself on this occasion—I should like to think would have the support of both sides of the House.

Mrs. Sharples: Perhaps I may leave the philosophical argument addressed to us by the hon. Member for Birmingham, Small Heath (Mr. Denis Howell) and direct attention to Lords Amendment No. 4 and the new Clauses. As the hon. Member for Barking (Mr. Driberg) said, new Clause 5 is little different from the Clause passed by this House. From the Home Office point of view, the main alteration, which puts right one matter of objection which I expressed on Report, is the final sentence added to subsection (2) of new Clause 5:
Provided that no term or condition relating to public order shall be imposed without the consent of the Chief Constable of the police authority".
That meets our main objection.
As regards the other Amendments made in the other place, there were five made on Third Reading: two were drafting Amendments, and the three others were as follows: first, that when the county council turned down a site on grounds of unsuitability it should tell the promoters why it thought the site unsuitable; second, that the powers to regulate pop festivals should not be operative till 1st December, 1971; and, third, that the county council should draw up a model set of terms and conditions to be available to any would-be promoter.

All those Amendments are satisfactory to the Government, and I think that it would be right now for the House to reach a decision on the new Clauses.

Question put, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment:—

Remaining Lords Amendments agreed to.

SECONDARY EDUCATION, DERBY

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Fortescue.]

2.3 a.m.

Mr. Phillip Whitehead: The hour is very late and on a day when Derby in particular has cause to rejoice because a vote this evening in the United States Senate has given great consulation to many of my constituents and has preserved their jobs, it may seem churlish of me to raise another problem in Derby, this time one that affects the problems of my constituents' children.
I begin by briefly reminding the Under-Secretary of State for Education and

The House divided: Ayes 107, Noes 6.

Division No. 453.
AYES
[1.55 p.m.


Atkins, Humphrey
Hall, Miss Joan (Keighley)
Page, Graham (Crosby)


Bagier, Gordon A. T.
Hall-Davis, A. G. F.
Percival, Ian


Baker, Kenneth (St. Marylebone)
Hamilton, Michael (Salisbury)
Pink, R. Bonner


Beamish, Col. Sir Tufton
Harrison, Col. Sir Harwood (Eye)
Powell, Rt. Hn. J. Enoch


Benyon, W.
Haselhurst, Alan
Pym, Rt. Hn. Francis


Blaker, Peter
Havers, Michael
Reed, Laurance (Bolton E.)


Boardman, Tom (Leicester, S.W.)
Hawkins, Paul
flees, Peter (Dover)


Boscawen Robert
Hayhoe, Barney
Rhys Williams, Sir Brandon


Braine, Bernard
Hiley, Joseph
Rossi, Hugh (Hornsey)


Bray, Ronald
Hill, James (Southampton, Test)
Rost, Peter


Brinton, Sir Tatton
Hornsby-Smith, Rt.Hn.Dame Patricia
Russell, Sir Ronald


Brocklebank-Fowler, Christopher
Howell, Ralph (Norfolk, N.)
Sharples, Richard


Butler, Adam (Bosworth)
Hutchison, Michael Clark
Shaw, Michael (Sc'b'gh & Whitby)


Clark, William (Surrey, E.)
James, David
Shelton, William (Clapham)


Clegg, Walter
Kinsey, J. R.
Soref, Harold


Cocks, Michael (Bristol, S.)
Kitson, Timothy
Speed, Keith


Cooke, Robert
Knox, David
Stanbrook, Ivor


Costain, A. P.
Langford-Holt, Sir John
Stuttaford, Dr. Tom


Curran, Charles
Legge-Bourke, Sir Harry
Sutcliffe, John


d'Avigdor-Goldsmid, Maj-Gen.James
Le Marchant, Spencer
Taylor, Frank (Moss Side)


Drayson, G. B.
Longden, Gilbert
Tebbit, Norman


Edwards, Nicholas (Pembroke)
Luce, R. N.
Thomas, John Stradling (Monmouth;


Elliot, Capt. Walter (Carshalton)
MacArthur, Ian
Turton, Rt. Hn. Sir Robin


Emery, Peter
McNair-Wilson, Patrick (NewForest)
van Straubenzee, W. R.


Evans, Fred
Maddan, Martin
Vaughan, Dr. Gerard


Eyre, Reginald
Maude, Angus
Vickers, Dame Joan


Fenner, Mrs. Peggy
Maxwell-Hyslop, R. J.
Waddington, David


Fidler, Michael
Mitchell, Lt.-Col.C.(Aberdeenshire, W)
Ward, Dame Irene


Fortescue, Tim
Mitchell, David (Basingstoke)
Weatherill, Bernard


Gilmour, Sir John (Fife, E.)
Molyneaux, James
Wells, John (Maidstone)


Glyn, Dr. Alan
Money, Ernle
White, Roger (Gravesend)


Goodhart, Philip
Monro, Hector
Wiggin, Jerry


Goodhew, Victor
More, Jasper
Wood, Rt. Hn. Richard


Gorst, John
Morgan-Giles, Rear-Adm.



Gower, Raymond
Noble, Rt. Hn, Michael
TELLERS FOR THE AYES:


Green, Alan
Normanton, Tom
Mr. Ray Mawby and


Gurden, Harold
Owen, Idris (Stockport, N.)
Mr. Mark Woodnutt.




NOES


Davis, Terry (Bromsgrove)
Fletcher, Ted (Darlington)
TELLERS FOR THE NOES:


Driberg, Tom
Foot, Michael
Mr. Arthur Davidson and


Faulds, Andrew
Howell, Denis (Small Heath)
Mr. Phillip Whitehead.

Science of the overall situation in Derby relative to the sector A reorganisation. The borough council, which has been Conservative controlled since 1968, proposed to reorganise secondary education in Derby on comprehensive lines as part of a four-sector plan over four years. It is the first sector, sector A, which is to change over by September next in the case of non-selective schools.

On the success or failure of the first stage the scheme as a whole may be judged. It is unfortunately true that the timetable for sector A and the problems it involves have aroused the hostility of some parents in Derby and the misgivings of many more. It is, I regret, equally true to say that the delays in acquiring Ministerial approval for sector A reorganisation have set off a further train

of misunderstandings. The hon. Genileman will be aware that the controversial element in sector A concerns three schools, brought together by the enlargement of the borough in 1968, which cannot be amalgamated on one campus site without the complete replacement of the oldest of them: the Derwent school, which stands at some distance from the Darwin and Henry Cavendish schools Over the last three years there has been a great deal of juggling about possible amalgamation. All have had the same result—three into two will not go to provide an all-in 11 to 18 comprehensive education in this area.

As a result, three schemes have been submitted to the Department of Education and Science, all with some opposition from at least parent groups in the area. The first, proposed in 1969, was for an 11 to 13 junior high school at Derwent and an amalgamated senior high school formed from the other two. The second, in 1970, proposed separate senior high schools at Darwin and Henry Cavendish and the third, in 1971, the present scheme, which has just been approved, is for an 11 to 14 junior high school at Derwent and Darwin and a senior high school at Henry Cavendish.

This scheme was submitted to the Department under Section 13 of the 1944 Act on 16th April, this year. It is quite clear from public meetings which I have attended and from the petition which was presented to the Minister and from objections under Section 13 to the latest proposals that many people in my constituency are still unhappy with these latest proposals, or with any others which deny sector A all-through comprehensive education in all its schools. I shall return to those fears.

Nevertheless, if the present compromise were to receive the wide measure of public support which it needed if all-through reorganisation on non-selective lines in Derby were to be a success, it needed unequivocal support from the Department of Education and Science. Teachers had to be appointed by 31st May this year and the 17 headmasters involved had to organise their own explanatory meetings by the end of term and notify parents.

Alarmed by the silence of the Department, I wrote myself on 19th May to the

Secretary of State begging her not to impose an impossible delay, but to say yes or no to the latest scheme. I received a letter from the noble Lord, Lord Belstead, telling me that he could not hold out any hope of a decision by 31st May, which did not surprise me because the letter was dated 9th June. Soon after, the noble Lord was reported in the local Press by the hon. Member for Derbyshire, South-East (Mr. Rost) as being unlikely to accept the scheme. As the hon. Member intends to intervene in this debate, perhaps he will tell the House precisely what those comments meant and why approval eventually came, contrary to the report in the Press, on 28th June.

When approval for the scheme came, it was far too late. Derby education committee had circulated headmasters on 3rd June warning them that approval was still awaited and enclosing a draft circular to parents in the Sector A catchment area. Not surprisingly, some parents who received this circular before Ministry approval came through suspected the authority of stampeding the Minister with a fait accompli. This was an unwarranted suspicion but none the less it was as widespread at the time. The facts are otherwise, as I hope I shall show, but the end result has been to arouse even more acute anxiety among my constituents in the area.

Many fears, particularly about teaching standards and oportunities at Derwent school, are unfounded. I consider the headmaster of Derwent school a personal friend of mine and I have a high regard for the teaching staff of that school. Nevertheless, things are to some degree what they appear to be and the sort of worries and reservations which were expressed to me very forcibly about this scheme and the impossibility of having an all-through comprehensive system with a division among three schools have been paramount with most parents in the area.

I therefore ask the Minister not just about the unconscionable delays, but also about a practical solution. We have heard much recently about massive new programmes of public works. We are awaiting with interest the reply to the hon. Member for Derbyshire, West (Mr. Scott-Hopkins) who is to ask later in the week what crumbs from this table may fall to the Derbyshire primary schools.

I suggest that the Department can help the Derby education authority by approving its submission for the conversion of the Derwent site to primary use at an estimated cost of £48,000 and the bringing forward of the construction of a replacement Derwent school on the Breadsall Hill Top site to provide a common campus for all three secondary schools to provide one all-through comprehensive. The cost of this additional building would be around £290,000 providing 530 cost places on present plans, the local authority fears that it will not be able to institute this building programme for seven or eight years. That is the complete life cycle in school of one whole generation of children.

As the Under-Secretary of State knows, it has submitted a scheme to the Department of Education and Science for the commencement of the building in 1973–74 and it is that scheme which I urge on the Minister tonight. The Minister may well say, "In that case, this should be the first priority in Derby", and I freely admit that it is not. The simple provision of roofs over heads in areas where expanding population has outrun all facilities has to come first in Derby.

But, like it or not, the Ministry is involved in the problems of comprehensive reorganisation in Derby. If the scheme is to work, it will do so only if the opening stages can be shown to be a success—and I passionately believe that they should be a success and can be a success. The Derby scheme needs nothing more than a reallocation of resources. If it provides overall equality of access to full secondary education for every child in the borough, it will be a fitting climax to the career of the Director of Education, Dr. Charles Middleton, who has guided the development of education in Derby throughout my lifetime.

The Minister will not need to be reminded of the well-know poem which begins,
… for want of a nail, the shoe was lost;

He can complete those lines for himself. If the reorganisation is to begin in suspicion and hostility, it cannot possibly work. If parents start moving from one part of the borough to another, a new form of segregation—always a lurking fear with non-selective education by districts—will develop. If that happens, the

future good will of the town towards four sector redevelopment phase by phase will be put in doubt.

It is my belief that basically this is a good scheme, that the four sectors ought to move roughly in the proper order of progress along the path to non-selective secondary education. I believe that there are only two schools involved over the whole county borough—one which we discussed, Derwent, and one in sector B—which would need to be replaced ahead of time to get the whole scheme through. I do not want to see parents suspicious of comprehensive reorganisation or moving themselves bag and baggage from one part of the town to another to avoid a particular part of a particular scheme which they may feel does not come up to scratch because it does not offer the full 11 to 18 facilities which they feel that the rest of the borough is scheduled to get. It is to prevent this that I earnestly commend the county borough development proposals for 1973–74 to the Minister.

2.14 a.m.

Mrs. Peter Rost: A large proportion of the constituents living within the sector A area are constituents of South-East Derbyshire and I have been at the reception end of the tremendous weight of complaints and opposition which have been building up over the past year or two since the original reorganisation scheme was proposed. I want to support the hon. Member for Derby, North (Mr. Whitehead) in what he said: the main opposition has not been on the principle of comprehensive education. It has been simply on the principle that in a certain sector of sector A in the Breadsall and Chaddesden area there is a strong feeling that unequal educational opportunities are being offered under the proposals—that is unequal with the rest of the sector and certainly unequal with the rest of the proposals in the Derby borough. The opposition has been prolonged and substantial.
I have here a petition signed by 1,500 parents, nearly all in the Breadsall and Chaddesden area. That represents a substantial part of those affected. There have also been nearly 400 individuals letters, of which I have copies, which have been sent to the Minister. That is some evidence


of the weight of protest. What investigations, what consultations have there been to deal with these objections?
On 8th March the official opposition organisation, which calls itself the Bread-sail and Chaddesden Parents Committee, sent a detailed letter to the Minister with the official objections to the scheme. I am absolutely shattered to have to announce to the House that it has had no reply. It had an acknowledgment after the letter was sent, but no reply—not until after the scheme was approved and towards the end of June. It has been seething with frustration and anger ever since. Why was this committee of parents and many teachers refused a reply? Why was it not invited or allowed to meet the Derby Borough Education Committee? Although it made numerous representations asking to be seen, it was ignored.
On Friday, 18th June I was invited to a meeting with the Under-Secretary and I was then given the opportunity of discussing the proposals which at that time had not been approved. They were still under consideration by the Minister. About a week later, on 25th June, the Minister finally notified approval of the scheme.

Mr. Whitehead: Would not the hon. Gentleman agree that his own intervention, by supplying the local newspaper with alleged facts that the scheme would be rejected, built up a great deal of anticipation in the county borough that the scheme would be scrapped and the parents were therefore under a misapprehension as to the real nature of the decision?

Mr. Rost: At the meeting with the noble Lord, Lord Belstead, I was given a clear impression that the scheme was not yet approved and that there were certain aspects of it which were regarded as unsatisfactory by the Minister. I have a letter from the Under-Secretary dated 21st July, after the scheme was approved, one line of which reads:
As we discussed, there were indeed features about the authority's plan on which I shared some of your misgivings.
I was amazed and most disappointed when the scheme was finally approved. I am not suggesting that Derby Borough Education Committee jumped the gun or presented a fait accompli to the Minister or acted illegally, although that has been

suggested, and the evidence would appear to point in this direction unless it is proved otherwise tonight. Why was this scheme finally approved, several days after it began to be implemented by Derby Borough?
The parents, my constituents, ought to be given an explanation. Why has the parents committee not been given answers to its other major queries? For example, how does the reorganisation improve the educational facilities when it offers less equal opportunities in the Breadsall and Chaddesden area of sector A? Why does sector A have to be the first sector to be implemented when it is the least suitable as it does not provide all-through 11–18 education in the area? How can it be regarded as a comprehensive scheme when it is only a zoned neighbourhood scheme and a butchered-up scheme at that?
Finally, why is it being implemented in sector A when the financial provisions necessary to provide equal educational opportunities have not been made available? These are questions to which my constituents are still awaiting answers. Until a purpose-built school with the necessary finance can be provided, how can equal educational standards, not only with those now available but with the rest of sector A and the rest of Derby be provided? It is disgraceful that the scheme should be implemented in this way, against so much opposition, without proper consultation and without the equality of educational opportunities that Circular 10/70 has always insisted should be provided?

2.20 a.m.

The Under-Secretary of State for Education and Science (Mr. William van Straubenzee): The House will appreciate that I have only 10 minutes in which to give as many answers as I can to the points raised in this debate.
First, I reject absolutely, completely and totally the views of the hon. Member for Derby, North (Mr. Whitehead) on the subject of delay. It was on 29th January that the local education authority published its proposals. There is a statutory two-month period, and lest anyone should think that these are pure formalities for my right hon. Friend, this case illustrates the contrary.
My right hon. Friend goes into these cases with the greatest care, for the very


reasons my hon. Friend the Member for Derbyshire, South-East (Mr. Rost) asked me to go into. Those reasons include the representations which he was courteous enough to forward to her and about which the organisation to which he made reference wrote directly. It is precisely for that sort of reason that my right hon. Friend went into them carefully in this case.
We should ask ourselves whether it is appropriate for a local education authority to publish proposals on 29th January which it is intended to implement in the September of the same year. This is at least a reasonable question to ask, and it was very much in my right hon. Friend's mind. It is a quick timetable, is it not? I must remind the House that, as my right hon. Friend said on 21st April—I do not have time to quote the words she used in the House—she had 133 Section 13 proposals relating to secondary schools before her at that time.
I therefore make no apology for the fact that this was gone into in the greatest possible detail and care, for precisely the reasons my hon. Friend mentioned. I cannot say why Derby Borough did or did not act in a particular way. That is not my responsibility and that question must be directed elsewhere.
Then I am asked to hasten the replacement. The hon. Gentleman used a splendid phrase when writing to my noble Friend. He wrote to my noble Friend on 6th July courteously giving notice that he would raise this matter to see if it was possible
for the Education Committee to spend their way out of the problem by bringing forward the date of the proposed rebuilding of one of the schools involved".
The hon. Gentleman's letter exhibited a remarkable attitude towards public expenditure. The Labour Government never spent—they proudly said this; they made a virtue of never spending—any money on reorganisation as such. I recall well when we were in opposition how, with considerable pride, they claimed not to be diverting any resources to reorganisation as such. The hon. Gentleman cannot now be heard to ask a different standard of us from that which he would have applied to his Government had he been supporting the Labour Party in Government now rather than in opposition.
Our priorities are roofs over heads, as he said, and thereafter the replacement of pre-1903 primary schools for which there is a continuing need. I make no apology for these two priorities. I believe that they are absolutely right. As I said, the second relates to primary schools for which there is a continuing need, and the school to which the hon. Gentleman referred does not fall into that category.
I am asked about the letters written by the local education authority. There were two. The first one was written on 3rd June to the heads, and that is a carefully qualified letter making it clear that this condition did not have the approval of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State. The second letter was on 18th June to the parents, and it was unqualified. My right hon. Friend deprecates the sending of a letter by the local education authority on the assumption that she will approve a scheme one way or the other. If local education authorities take risks in this way they may easily find they have made a severe miscalculation.
My right hon. Friend takes her duties in these matters very seriously—

Mrs. Whitehead: Mrs. Whitehead rose—

Mrs. van Straubenzee: I beg the hon. Gentleman's pardon. I cannot give way. I have been left with very little time. I want to give this assurance to my hon. Friend. At the time she made her decision which she announced on 25th June my right hon. Friend was not aware that the unqualified letter of 18th June had been written. Therefore, when she made her decision she was not influenced by it. She was not, in layman's language, "bounced" by the local education authority into agreeing to this because the authority had already written. I give that absolute assurance. Section 13 procedures are no mere formality.
To come to the merits of the scheme, I accept absolutely that the authority's proposals for Derwent, Darwin and Cavendish represented a very difficult decision. The authority was not able to propose an all-through 11–18 comprehensive school because all three existing buildings would have to be used and they were too far apart to form part of a unitary school. I think that is common ground between all parties. The authority recognised that were not immediately available to establish the


school on one site, and I have dealt with this point. I am told that an earlier plan to organise the school with a break at 13 had run up against much local opposition.
Inevitably, the authority, with the advice of the local teachers, came to the proposals that I have already referred to. the statutory proposals of 29th January, 1971, under which Derwent, Darwin were to admit the 11–14 age range and Cavendish the 14–16 age range. I accept absolutely that a break at 14, two years before the first public examination, is unwelcome generally speaking and it is this reservation to which my noble Friend was making reference when he had his interview with my hon. Friend the Member for Derbyshire, South-East. This is one reason why the proposals had to be gone into with such care.
What my right hon. Friend had to do was to ask whether, if some of the drawbacks of changing school at 14 could be overcome by effective co-operation between the teachers in the three schools, there was perhaps something of value to be gained. The authority thought there was, and on balance—I do not suggest it was more than on balance—my right hon. Friend agreed.
I will give the House four reasons why she thinks so. First, all pupils in the area, and not just some of them, would share the facilities of Cavendish which I understand by common consent are excellent. Secondly, no one would hereafter spend all his secondary school life at Derwent. Thirdly—and this is important—the other schools in sector A would be able to develop unimpeded as comprehensive schools. I have studied the

map of the area carefully in preparation for this debate, and I am referring to Olive Eden and Spondon about which there is no controversy, but they are to an extent linked in this context. Fourthly, the authority would be able to launch the first stage of its policy of ending selection. That would be the first stage that it could launch, and I understand that this has wide local support.
It was for these reasons that my right hon. Friend, on balance, understanding that it was an exceedingly difficult matter, and having weighed most carefully, and, in part, thereafter got criticised for having taken time to do so, the representations made to her as a result of the statutory plans, made her decision. I simply have to say that, the decision having been made, it is not revocable. That is why she has, without, I hope, discourtesy to my hon. Friend, decided that there really would be no point in her receiving a further deputation on the matter.
I want to end on a constructive note It is now up to the local authority whose proposal this was to demonstrate its belief that these three schools can be effectively organised against the day that resources become available for the establishment of an all-through comprehensive school in Breadsall, which I am sure is the objective towards which all of us should work. I hope that this brief debate may end on that constructive note and that we may be able as a team to work together for the good of the children of the area, which is what really matters.

Question put and agreed to.

Adjourned accordingly at twenty-eight minutes to Three o'clock a.m.